Sign in to follow this  
Scylla Rhiadra

The UnQueering of Second Life

Recommended Posts

 


Darrius Gothly wrote:

 

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.

 

 

i'd rather read Kant , socrates, or aristotle than your thoughts on morality and ethics,  and i suspect i wouldnt be alone.

however if you write a world renowned book on either or both subjects please let me know, i would be happy to read it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Canoro Philipp wrote:

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.

 

I don't see anything wrong with being an immersionist, either.  Nor is making Second Life strictly a place of fantasy.

However, if someone point blank says to you "Are you a RL woman?" and you are genetically a RL man, and say "Yes I'm a RL woman", and even pass along a fake pic claiming it's you- that's still blatant deception.  A lie is a lie no matter how you look at it or what your rationale is for the lie.

If you don't want to discuss your RL gender- then say that.  "I don't discuss my RL".  At that point, the person interacting can make a decision whether or not to continue regardless of RL gender. 

It doesn't matter what their intent, malicious or not, if you're intentionally and deliberately bold face lying to someone it's just plain wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Theia Magic wrote:

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.

 

Now, admittedly, I'm not sure what the point of this example above was, but if I am assuming correctly that you are attempting to put distance between the levels of morality of the two characters in question, I'd have to say that due directly to the lengths you've gone to skew the results, you've failed.

Either they're both wrong, or neither is wrong. You are attempting to base a moral judgement of each on unequal happenstance completely within the control of a 3rd party. Whether or not the subject ever comes up.

Your example tells us nothing about what Bob's "agenda" would lead him to do were he to actually be asked the same thing "Fred" was asked. And, since he wasn't, we can only base things on what we knew both did when presented with identical situations and opoortunity. Which was to play a character opposite their RL sex and become involved with someone else.

When this example is actually stopped before it becomes biased and draws a trapdoor for Fred's morality directly under his feet while sparing Bob similar treatment, it becomes impossible to assign an "agenda" to one man and not the other.

I could still quite easily make Bob wrong due to guilt by ommission and say he had the same moral obligation to act in his partner's best interest and disclose on his own as Fred did when asked directly. Or, put another way, I could say that Bob showed as little interest and initiative in getting the truth known as Fred did. And I could be secure in that conclusion.

Your example concludes one thing. It's not a crime if you don't get caught. Is that your definition of honesty? More to the point, it exhibits distinct "Don't ask don't tell" characteristics. Is that what you want? Then just as in the RL law, don't ask. You won't be told. Same solution proposed the other 38K times this subject has come up.

As per your example, that is morally right as rain, so if the paranoid would simply keep their night terrors to themselves the entire moral connundrum would not exist. Or would be easily avoided via E-harmony.

 

(From someone who is not in the target group, is tired of being asked if she is, is tired of there even being a group targeted over such nonsense, and is tired of every new fangled chatroom gadget added to SL that she says "no" to being the direct result of some BS Pinky and the Brain plot to take over the world).




Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Kascha Matova wrote:

 

Theia Magic wrote:

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.

 

Now, admittedly, I'm not sure what the point of this example above was, but if I am assuming correctly that you are attempting to put distance between the levels of morality of the two characters in question, I'd have to say that due directly to the lengths you've gone to skew the results, you've failed.

Either they're both wrong, or neither is wrong. You are attempting to base a moral judgement of each on unequal happenstance completely within the control of a 3rd party. Whether or not the subject ever comes up.

Your example tells us nothing about what Bob's "agenda" would lead him to do were he to actually be asked the same thing "Fred" was asked. And, since he wasn't, we can only base things on what we knew both did when presented with identical situations and opoortunity. Which was to play a character opposite their RL sex and become involved with someone else.

When this example is actually stopped before it becomes biased and draws a trapdoor for Fred's morality directly under his feet while sparing Bob similar treatment, it becomes impossible to assign an "agenda" to one man and not the other.

I could still quite easily make Bob wrong due to guilt by ommission and say he had the same moral obligation to act in his partner's best interest and disclose on his own as Fred did when asked directly. Or, put another way, I could say that Bob showed as little interest and initiative in getting the truth known as Fred did. And I could be secure in that conclusion.

Your example concludes one thing. It's not a crime if you don't get caught. Is that your definition of honesty? More to the point, it exhibits distinct "Don't ask don't tell" characteristics. Is that what you want? Then just as in the RL law, don't ask. You won't be told. Same solution proposed the other 38K times this subject has come up.

As per your example, that is morally right as rain, so if the paranoid would simply keep their night terrors to themselves the entire moral connundrum would not exist. Or would be easily avoided via E-harmony.

 

(From someone who is not in the target group, is tired of being asked if she is, is tired of there even being a group targeted over such nonsense, and is tired of every new fangled chatroom gadget added to SL that she says "no" to being the direct result of some BS Pinky and the Brain plot to take over the world).





 

Do not attempt to read between the lines or write words into what I stated that aren't there.  I meant exactly what I said and nothing more.  However, if you wish to take it a step further and classify Bob as a liar for simply playing a female avatar, that's your choice.

I never said "it's not a crime if you don't get caught".  I'm saying people have the right to play whatever avatar they please, but if asked, either say you don't discuss RL details or tell the truth.  Do not lie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Theia Magic wrote:

 

Kascha Matova wrote:

 

Theia Magic wrote:

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.

 

Now, admittedly, I'm not sure what the point of this example above was, but if I am assuming correctly that you are attempting to put distance between the levels of morality of the two characters in question, I'd have to say that due directly to the lengths you've gone to skew the results, you've failed.

Either they're both wrong, or neither is wrong. You are attempting to base a moral judgement of each on unequal happenstance completely within the control of a 3rd party. Whether or not the subject ever comes up.

Your example tells us nothing about what Bob's "agenda" would lead him to do were he to actually be asked the same thing "Fred" was asked. And, since he wasn't, we can only base things on what we knew both did when presented with identical situations and opoortunity. Which was to play a character opposite their RL sex and become involved with someone else.

When this example is actually stopped before it becomes biased and draws a trapdoor for Fred's morality directly under his feet while sparing Bob similar treatment, it becomes impossible to assign an "agenda" to one man and not the other.

I could still quite easily make Bob wrong due to guilt by ommission and say he had the same moral obligation to act in his partner's best interest and disclose on his own as Fred did when asked directly. Or, put another way, I could say that Bob showed as little interest and initiative in getting the truth known as Fred did. And I could be secure in that conclusion.

Your example concludes one thing. It's not a crime if you don't get caught. Is that your definition of honesty? More to the point, it exhibits distinct "Don't ask don't tell" characteristics. Is that what you want? Then just as in the RL law, don't ask. You won't be told. Same solution proposed the other 38K times this subject has come up.

As per your example, that is morally right as rain, so if the paranoid would simply keep their night terrors to themselves the entire moral connundrum would not exist. Or would be easily avoided via E-harmony.

 

(From someone who is not in the target group, is tired of being asked if she is, is tired of there even being a group targeted over such nonsense, and is tired of every new fangled chatroom gadget added to SL that she says "no" to being the direct result of some BS Pinky and the Brain plot to take over the world).





 

Do not attempt to read between the lines or write words into what I stated that aren't there.  I meant exactly what I said and nothing more.  However, if you wish to take it a step further and classify Bob as a liar for simply playing a female avatar, that's your choice.

I never said "it's not a crime if you don't get caught".  I'm saying people have the right to play whatever avatar they please, but if asked,
either say you don't discuss RL details or tell the truth. 
Do not lie

 

So, you're establishing a whole new set of rules that LL, in their infinite wisdom, didn't bother to include.

Let's re-write the ToS, shall we?

"By undersigning the above, on being asked questions about your real-life, you undertake to either tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you Bob OR copy and paste the following: "no comment", as all creativity and imagination relating to your second life must pertain wholly to your avatar's existence".

I wonder how many people asked "Would I find you as attractive as I find your avatar?" would be forced to answer "no comment"...

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Mags Indigo wrote:

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

 

I'm afraid I have to say this - you have to be deliberately naive to expect what you appear to be expecting in SL. It's exactly the same as if I became all indignant over the "killing" of people in on-line war games. If don't like people pretending to kill others, I simply stay away from that game. SL is about pretending to be what you're not. If I felt I couldn't cope with that I just wouldn't play.

Another case entirely, if we were discussing an actual dating site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Carole Franizzi wrote:

 

Mags Indigo wrote:

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

 

I'm afraid I have to say this - you have to be deliberately naive to expect what you appear to be expecting in SL. It's exactly the same as if I became all indignant over the "killing" of people in on-line war games. If don't like people pretending to kill others, I simply stay away from that game. SL is about pretending to be what you're not. If I felt I couldn't cope with that I just wouldn't play.

Another case entirely, if we were discussing an actual dating site.

 

who ever said SL was about pretending to be what you are not?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can dig for a fight where there is none all you like, and continue to try to find words in my statements that aren't there.

Sorry, but I don't take the bait.

In case basic human decency escapes you, it has nothing to do with TOS or any "rule".  It's about not being a liar and intentionally deceiving people.  Is that really such a hard concept to grasp?

ETA: Though completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, I make no claim that I look like my avatar, in fact if someone asks if I'm as attractive as Theia I'd likely laugh as I respond "oh heck no".  I refuse to lie.  Heck the only woman I know who's more attractive in RL than her avatar in Second Life is Ima. (yes it's sickening but true, she's beautiful lol)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually in reality I'm expecting nothing at all out of SL - it's merely a virtual platform that I like to spend time on because I like to fiddle about with building and I like talking to people from all over the world.

It's people I expect things from - and then only if they're close enough to actually expect anything at all. People pretending to kill people is gaming in a totally up front way which unless one has mental health issues is pretty easy to see. People pretending to love other people and putting lots of effort and deceptive techniques to make it look believable are another kettle of fish entirely.

The discussion as I see it is about how people dupe themselves into believing that they can act like prats and it doesn't matter because it's a virtual platform. 

Neither do I think I'm right, I just think I'm more comfortable with how I think of things than agreeing that people can behave like prats and it's ok.

I'm sorry that seems to offend you, but really there is no need to 'worry' about my naivety - it's stood me in good stead to date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The use of social networks in conjunction with SL, rather than unqueering SL, can actually help to queer RL.  :)  Pretty early on in my SL life, I created an email address and a Twitter account for my avi, and have a Plurk account as well; it lets me spend a little time with my character throughout the day, when it would be inappropriate to boot up the old viewer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Dogboat Taurog wrote:

 

Carole Franizzi wrote:

 

Mags Indigo wrote:

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

 

I'm afraid I have to say this - you have to be deliberately naive to expect what you appear to be expecting in SL. It's exactly the same as if I became all indignant over the "killing" of people in on-line war games. If don't like people pretending to kill others, I simply stay away from that game. SL is about pretending to be what you're not. If I felt I couldn't cope with that I just wouldn't play.

Another case entirely, if we were discussing an actual dating site.

 

who ever said SL was about pretending to be what you are not?

 

Do you think SL should only represent what people actually are?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Samm Florian wrote:

The use of social networks in conjunction with SL, rather than unqueering SL, can actually help to queer RL.  
:)
 Pretty early on in my SL life, I created an email address and a Twitter account for my avi, and have a Plurk account as well; it lets me spend a little time with my character throughout the day, when it would be inappropriate to boot up the old viewer.

 

This is kind of a cool point, Samm, and one that would be interesting to develop further.

It's also a bit more in line wih the actual OP of this thread, as opposed to the (I suppose inevitable) "If he cheats in SL, is it unfair?" discussions that this has sort of devolved into.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Dogboat Taurog wrote:

 

if it walks like a duck,  quacks like a duck and looks like a duck,  its a duck.

 

 

Not in SL.  In SL that duck can take the shape of a human avatar, activate a sexy strut, and distort it's quack.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Dogboat Taurog wrote:

maybe you havent read Cant.

just because you can do it doesn't mean you should.

ps. i am exactly what i am. theres no escaping who you are either.

but i think there is an important difference, i dont discard my morals when i log in.

I have read Kant. In the German original even. But I have to admit that I have no idea who Cant is :) A Freudian slip perhaps ("no you can't")?

And of course I can escape who I biologically am. There is an online platform that was made exactly for this purpose. It's called Second Life.

I also don't leave my morals at the login screen, but apparently your moral system and mine are a bit different. For one, I don't condemn people for being whoever they want to be in a make believe fantasy world.

 

PS: Just because you can try and force your morality onto other people does not mean that you should.

PPS: I've recently come across a Henry Lois Mencken quote while lurking in another forum. It read "Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy." For some reason, it seems to fit here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying Phillip Rosedale and Linden Lab no longer wants any LBGT people around? Say it. Right out.

 

If LL doesn't want any "queers" around then they can say so in a blog post and deal with the aftermath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Theia Magic wrote:

Do not attempt to read between the lines or write words into what I stated that aren't there.  I meant exactly what I said and nothing more.  However, if you wish to take it a step further and classify Bob as a liar for simply playing a female avatar, that's your choice.

I never said "it's not a crime if you don't get caught".  I'm saying people have the right to play whatever avatar they please, but if asked, either say you don't discuss RL details or tell the truth. 
Do not lie

 

Why so defensive here Theia? I'm not attacking you.


I'm not reading between the lines at all. I'm reading your example, line by line, and pointing out that there is no way given your source material to determine what Bob's moral compass actually points him towards, because the matter was never tested. Due to the fact that there is no way to examine Bob's actions when put in the same situation as Fred, you cannot claim to be making a fair judgment on their moral character based on their choices.

What you can do, is admit that Bob has been no more honest with the 3rd party than Fred. The 3rd party in both situations is operating without knowledge of the truth.

This line here of yours, is at the crux of the discussion however:

"However, if you wish to take it a step further and classify Bob as a liar for simply playing a female avatar, that's your choice."

And not because it is wrong, but because it is absolutely right. I, just like anyone else, can set my own upper and lower limits for what morality really is, and what moral standard I expect from others. I should not be surprised to find out that others have their own, either. But whether you intended it to or not, your example and advice rewards the ceding of control of one's own morals and actions to the expectations of others on demand. And the only way to be free to define one's own path is to be lucky enough to never be asked to forfeit said freedom.

Bob smells like a rose only because it just so happens that the person taking a whiff could care less what a rose actually smells like.

Now to your credit, you do mention that there is the possibility that if Bob's partner were to find out the truth on his own, he may react badly. And he may. But that has no bearing upon whether or not Bob has acted any more in the interest of conveying the truth than Fred has. Quite simply, he has not.

I don't classify Bob or Fred at all, even as written in your example. I've had "Fred" happen to me, where a generic picture of some good looking guy was given to me without being asked for by someone I was dating who later told me they were actually a woman. Still later, they went back to saying they were really a man. What irritated me was not that they were not telling me the truth, but that they were telling me anything at all. My avie was dating their avie. What else was necessary?

"I do not discuss RL details". That's an acceptable answer to those who ask such questions? Without reservations, conclusion jumping, and "fill-in-the-blanks" assumptions that there's something to hide? That seems a little disingenuous, especially in light of the 14K threads discussing those who for whatever reason, refuse to use voice. That's all I'll say on that.

And finally, there's always the even more obvious hole in this :

"but if asked, either say you don't discuss RL details or tell the truth.  Do not lie. "

And so the question remains, how would one know that they weren't told the truth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Ceka Cianci wrote:

 

Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

I see that you didn't get my point, which was that nobody ever presents themselves the way they truly are, neither in RL nor in SL. One basic tenet of human life is that we all strive to be more than we actually are.

Which is a great thing. The world would be a horrible place if we were all content to be true, unaltered expressions of our neolithic genes, instead of re-inventing ourselves as something better, more interesting, more colorful, more civilized. You will have to leave it to the individual to decide what "better" means.

 

so in other words you feel everyone lies to everyone else about who they are? like to say they are better than they are?

sorry but some people just can't bull**bleep** like that.

[...]

That wasn't my point either. 

People are biologically programmed to try and "deceive" others by dressing in the way that is most flattering (i.e. hides their physiological shortcomings). Women use makeup to appear more feminine, and visually elongate their legs by wearing high heels. Men shave their faces to appear younger. Not consciously, but that is the effect which caused this behaviour to be selected for.

Just a few examples of how people improve their appearance and hide their true selves, i.e. the true expression of their genetic makeup. If you shave your legs or your armpits, you essentially lie about the fact that your body does grow hair in those spots. If you use deodorant, you lie about your natural scent. That's what I was talking about.

In SL, we can take it even further, and it's perfectly natural to use this to our advantage. I don't think that I have ever met anybody in SL who looked their true age, for example. Or their true weight, or true level of physical fitness. I mean, I've never seen a male avatar with a beer belly :) Gender is merely another trait that can be changed and improved in this virtual world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Kascha Matova wrote:

 

Theia Magic wrote:

Do not attempt to read between the lines or write words into what I stated that aren't there.  I meant exactly what I said and nothing more.  However, if you wish to take it a step further and classify Bob as a liar for simply playing a female avatar, that's your choice.

I never said "it's not a crime if you don't get caught".  I'm saying people have the right to play whatever avatar they please, but if asked, either say you don't discuss RL details or tell the truth. 
Do not lie

 

Why so defensive here Theia? I'm not attacking you.


I'm not reading between the lines at all. I'm reading your example, line by line, and pointing out that there is no way given your source material to determine what Bob's moral compass actually points him towards, because the matter was never tested. Due to the fact that there is no way to examine Bob's actions when put in the same situation as Fred, you cannot claim to be making a fair judgment on their moral character based on their choices.

What you can do, is admit that Bob has been no more honest with the 3rd party than Fred. The 3rd party in both situations is operating without knowledge of the truth.

This line here of yours, is at the crux of the discussion however:

"
However, if you wish to take it a step further and classify Bob as a liar for simply playing a female avatar, that's your choice."

And not because it is wrong, but because it is absolutely right. I, just like anyone else, can set my own upper and lower limits for what morality really is, and what moral standard I expect from others. I should not be surprised to find out that others have their own, either. But whether you intended it to or not, your example and advice rewards the ceding of control of one's own morals and actions to the expectations of others on demand. And the only way to be free to define one's own path is to be lucky enough to never be asked to forfeit said freedom.

Bob smells like a rose only because it just so happens that the person taking a whiff could care less what a rose actually smells like.

Now to your credit, you do mention that there is the possibility that if Bob's partner were to find out the truth on his own, he may react badly. And he may. But that has no bearing upon whether or not Bob has acted any more in the interest of conveying the truth than Fred has. Quite simply, he has not.

I don't classify Bob or Fred at all, even as written in your example. I've had "Fred" happen to me, where a generic picture of some good looking guy was given to me without being asked for by someone I was dating who later told me they were actually a woman. Still later, they went back to saying they were really a man. What irritated me was not that they were not telling me the truth, but that they were telling me anything at all. My avie was dating their avie. What else was necessary?

"I do not discuss RL details". That's an acceptable answer to those who ask such questions? Without reservations, conclusion jumping, and "fill-in-the-blanks" assumptions that there's something to hide? That seems a little disingenuous, especially in light of the 14K threads discussing those who for whatever reason, refuse to use voice. That's all I'll say on that.

And finally, there's always the even more obvious hole in this :

"but if asked, either say you don't discuss RL details or tell the truth. 
Do not lie
. "

And so the question remains, how would one know that they weren't told the truth?

 

I think you nailed it without even realizing it- you don't know if someone is telling you the truth or not.  That is why Second Life is a dangerous place if your RL emotions get involved.  I've often joked that only way people will ever know for sure is if they create a new avatar called "BadTouch Linden" who is sent to everyone's home to perform a prostate or pelvic exam to verify gender.  Short of that happening- I suppose you don't know when you're being lied to.  You can only hope the person claiming to care for you cares enough to be honest.

For the record, saying "I don't disucss RL details" isn't a good answer, but at least the person isn't lying.  If someone were to say that to me I'd likely assume they were hiding something and decide how to handle the relationship accordingly going forward.  However, there are many here who truly don't care about someone's RL information, including gender, so in such a case it wouldn't change anything.

BTW- I had the exact same thing happen that you did.  Male avatar, claimed to be a RL man, passed fake pictures.  I've not known many other women that had happen, I wonder if we dated the same 'guy'.  *laughs hard*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Scylla Rhiadra wrote:

Samm Florian wrote:

The use of social networks in conjunction with SL, rather than unqueering SL, can actually help to queer RL.  
:)
 Pretty early on in my SL life, I created an email address and a Twitter account for my avi, and have a Plurk account as well; it lets me spend a little time with my character throughout the day, when it would be inappropriate to boot up the old viewer.

 

This is kind of a cool point, Samm, and one that would be interesting to develop further.

It's also a bit more in line wih the actual OP of this thread, as opposed to the (I suppose inevitable) "If he cheats in SL, is it unfair?" discussions that this has sort of devolved into.

 

Actually it hasn't really devolved into a  "If he cheats in SL, is it unfair?" - in my opinion. It has become a discussion on where does one draw the line between fantasy and fact.

Personally I love that SL allows people to be whoever and whatever they want to be. It allows people to explore aspects of their sexuality (among other things) that they either can't in RL or don't want to in RL because they are not ready for the 'reality' of it and just want the 'best bits'. I love all of that about SL and I'd hate to see it being pushed out (which I think it is in danger of)>

There is a point however - even in a virtual reality setting - where one has to ask oneself 'have I crossed a line between living my own fantasy and impacting negatively on someone else?' Many people choose not to ask this question and when others ask it of them they tend (generalisation) by implying that by virtue of being on a virtual platform they are now free of all responsibility for anything they say, do or cause.

If people are happy with that they are happy with that and most people like that do tend to hang about with people who present as like minded 'game players' - no harm done.

There are also people who actually either find it fun or a challenge to see how far they can dupe other people - and to an extent on a virtual platform that's to be expected, but is it to be agreed with or even applauded? And is taking your 'fantasies' to that level actually living a fantasy at all or just an excuse for being an unpleasant or manipulative person just because you can?

As I have stated multiple times through this thread and others - In MY Opinion it's not about people being able to explore fantasies and other identities - it is about when does that allow you to become a prat and not have to worry about it?

It's the one subject that seems to create division like no other because with all of us it can put a damper on our fun, and that's always a bad thing of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Dogboat Taurog wrote:

 

there are universal morals we live by, or at least should.

if you ignore them you are being ignorant and selfish imho.

to not hurt people by deception is one moral we should live by.

its like robbing a senile person of their money or laughing behind peoples backs.

 

Morals are far from being universal. Humans are the most diverse species on this planet, and our morals are equally diverse. And in addition to biological phenotypic diversity, we have also developed a wide range of cultures, each of which comes with its own moral system. Keep in mind that SL is a multicultural, multinational environment.

The part of the moral code that everyone can agree upon has been made into secular law. That will have to suffice. It is illegal to rob a senile person of their money, or anyone else for that matter. Misrepresenting your gender in Second Life, on the other hand, is not illegal. It's not even a ToS violation. Which means that the parallels that you're trying to draw here do not exist, and that it's up to each individual to decide if gender bending in SL is compatible with their own personal morality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Mags Indigo wrote:

People
pretending
to love other people and putting lots of effort and deceptive techniques to make it look believable


And there it is. The non sequitur that continues to plague these discussions.

That someone has created a new identity in SL and lives it does not tell any story whatsoever about whether or not they can genuinely love the made up identity of someone else.

To presume to know whether someone's love is genuine without any consideration of what they think, intend, or believe love in SL to be? That's rather arrogant, to not put too fine a point on things.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Kascha Matova wrote:

 
And there it is. The non sequitur that continues to plague these discussions.

That someone has created a new identity in SL and lives it does not tell any story whatsoever about whether or not they can genuinely love the made up identity of someone else.

To presume to know whether someone's love is genuine without any consideration of what they think, intend, or believe love in SL to be? That's rather arrogant, to not put too fine a point on things.

 

 

Actually I agree with you - "That someone has created a new identity in SL and lives it does not tell any story whatsoever about whether or not they can genuinely love the made up identity of someone else" but unfortunately there are many in SL who have had the experience of meeting people who really don't give the proverbial toss about love or anything other than the chase.

We are probably talking about two different aspects of SL you and I, but you obviously found one line from the many I have written to evidence your case so well you felt compelled to use it. I have no problem with people assuming identities, appearances or whatever they want - that is what SL is all about. All I keep asking is - does that make it all right to 'deliberately and with effort go all out to decieve someone else'? Now you can read into that what you want about me and what I might represent to you - I just ask the question (and give an answer for myself that I as a person feel comfortable with). I don't think that's such a bad thing and it intrigues me that so many seem to feel annoyed, threatened or just completely pi**ed off with it. Presumably even asking a question about when it's ok to deliberately decieve is a 'bad thing'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Theia Magic wrote:

 

I think you nailed it without even realizing it- you don't know if someone is telling you the truth or not.  That is why Second Life is a dangerous place if your RL emotions get involved.  I've often joked that only way people will ever know for sure is if they create a new avatar called "BadTouch Linden" who is sent to everyone's home to perform a prostate or pelvic exam to verify gender.  Short of that happening- I suppose you don't know when you're being lied to.  You can only hope the person claiming to care for you cares enough to be honest.

For the record, saying "I don't disucss RL details" isn't a good answer, but at least the person isn't lying.  If someone were to say that to me I'd likely assume they were hiding something and decide how to handle the relationship accordingly going forward.  However, there are many here who truly don't care about someone's RL information, including gender, so in such a case it wouldn't change anything.

BTW- I had the exact same thing happen that you did.  Male avatar, claimed to be a RL man, passed fake pictures.  I've not known many other women that had happen, I wonder if we dated the same 'guy'.  *laughs hard*

Thanks Theia! Now I had a perfectly delicious mouthful of milk that could and in fact should have made it to my stomach that is now marking time somewhere in my sinuses, as well as all over my desk  :smileyvery-happy:

 

"BadTouch Linden". I can't even repeat that without laughing myself into tears. And I get the visual too which I think is part of the problem.

The sad part of this is that there really is no resolution. We are saying the same thing on that, because there really is a way to doubt everything we are told here. There is room for doubt in everything we see in SL. It is the reality of the medium. It's for that reason that I believe what that old song says. "If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with".

Find something to love about the being you have been presented with, and love that. That's what I do. And when I came here, that's what I thought everyone did. Which was my point to Mags (which I'm sure will be taken the wrong way). There are people who take the SL mantra literally, and there are people who simply don't even look it up. Until you know which of those your love interest is, how can you say that the love they are offering is not everything they thought it was supposed to be, when given in SL?

This is not just an SL consideration. So much heartache, heartbreak, and misunderstanding in RL relationships comes from people who either are not aware of, or who will not accept, that the definition of love means as many things to as many people as there are people to love, and that even though someone else's definition doesn't match theirs exactly, it doesn't mean they are not being loved with everything that someone has.

The degree to which it differs will determine whether it's a lasting match. And it's actually okay to not be compatible. There is no shame in it for either partner.

(We just might have dated the same guy. If in fact, he was telling the truth the first and last time and not the time in the middle, hehe. Because otherwise, we might have dated the same woman!) :smileytongue:


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Ishtara Rothschild wrote:


Dogboat Taurog wrote:

maybe you havent read Cant.

just because you can do it doesn't mean you should.

ps. i am exactly what i am. theres no escaping who you are either.

but i think there is an important difference, i dont discard my morals when i log in.

I have read Kant. In the German original even. But I have to admit that I have no idea who Cant is
:)
A Freudian slip perhaps ("no you can't")?

And of course I can escape who I biologically am. There is an online platform that was made exactly for this purpose. It's called Second Life.

I also don't leave my morals at the login screen, but apparently your moral system and mine are a bit different. For one, I don't condemn people for being whoever they want to be in a make believe fantasy world.

 

PS: Just because you can try and force your morality onto other people does not mean that you should.

PPS: I've recently come across a Henry Lois Mencken quote while lurking in another forum. It read "Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy." For some reason, it seems to fit here.

 

yes, i was caught out on the Cant spelling a few pages ago.

pity you dont actually read all of the posts.

i put it to you that you that you may have read kant but didn't understand it or you chose not to agree with him for some reason that isn't clear.

my argument isnt against honest sexual deviants, its about the dishonest ones.

what stops overt deviants being beaten up on the streets by thugs is the law.

what stops the more intelligent is morality and reasoning.

its not aimed at you, and its not about you (i hope).

i dont want anyone and their deviant fantasy foisting themselves on me.

thats called respect.

 

 

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