Sign in to follow this  
Scylla Rhiadra

The UnQueering of Second Life

Recommended Posts


Dogboat Taurog wrote:

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

Nothing is essentially good. Ethics and morals depend on and change with the environmental circumstances. For example, an abundance of resources causes less territorial behaviour and more social tolerance, whereas scarcity requires a more competitive behaviour and a stricter enforcement of moral codes. There is nothing that would work in all environments. This is the very reason that morals have been subject to constant change throughout history.


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

Don't tell that to a masochist :)

Seriously though... the golden rule sounds really nice and all until you realize that not everyone wants to be treated in the same way you'd like to be treated. Don't offer a former alcoholic a drink. Don't try to hook up a gay friend with your female cousin. Don't go around and grope attractive women because you'd want to be groped by them.

Another obvious problem is that not everyone abides by the golden rule, so how do you deal with people who want to harm you? Do you stand idly by when the burglars clean out your apartment and don't get the police involved? Do you allow any militant fascist group to take over the government? There is not a single society that lives by the golden rule. Such a society would be unsustainable.

PS: Where was the golden rule when you went on a crusade against child avatars?

 


read Kant or study ethics for an insight.

 

People who study ethics don't stop at Kant. I much prefer Hume's utilitarianism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Dogboat Taurog wrote:

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

Did you really read all of them? If so, you should be aware that Kant's moral and ethical philosophy is quite a bit different from Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. That alone should tell you that ethics and morals are not universal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Carole Franizzi wrote:

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".

 

The "rules" aren't the least bit related to Linden Lab. If you asked someone "did you take the last cookie from the cookie jar last night" while in an auto repair shop, the shop has no liability to ensure the truth of the answer given.

 


Carole Franizzi wrote:

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

 

But that question does get asked .. a lot. However it's typically phrased something along the lines of "Is that the real you in your RL picture?" Sometimes, knowing that question is coming anyway, people intent on keeping up the deception will preemptively provide a "RL pic" .. of someone else.

I do agree, those wishing to keep their "bendedness" a secret should answer along the lines of "I don't disclose RL stuff." There's plenty of people that prefer to keep SL and RL separate for no reasons other than they just do not want the two to intermingle. Thus refusing to answer with a definitive yes or no keeps you safe within the flock of "no comments".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Ishtara Rothschild wrote:


Dogboat Taurog wrote:

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

Nothing is essentially good. Ethics and morals depend on and change with the environmental circumstances. For example, an abundance of resources causes less territorial behaviour and more social tolerance, whereas scarcity requires a more competitive behaviour and a stricter enforcement of moral codes. There is nothing that would work in all environments. This is the very reason that morals have been subject to constant change throughout history.

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

Don't tell that to a masochist
:)

Seriously though... the golden rule sounds really nice and all until you realize that not everyone wants to be treated in the same way you'd like to be treated. Don't offer a former alcoholic a drink. Don't try to hook up a gay friend with your female cousin. Don't go around and grope attractive women because you'd want to be groped by them.

Another obvious problem is that not everyone abides by the golden rule, so how do you deal with people who want to harm you? Do you stand idly by when the burglars clean out your apartment and don't get the police involved? Do you allow any militant fascist group to take over the government? There is not a single society that lives by the golden rule. Such a society would be unsustainable.

PS: Where was the golden rule when you went on a crusade against child avatars?

 

read Kant or study ethics for an insight.

 

People who study ethics don't stop at Kant. I much prefer Hume's utilitarianism.

 

Kant would be a start for you.

as for child avatars my opinion has not changed.

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.

 

You're completely ignoring that relationships do develop in SL .. and many times those relationships progress to a level where one or both parties begin to develop a very intense emotional attachment to the other.

If you want to keep SL for "playtime only" .. that's absolutely acceptable. Just as it's absolutely acceptable to "virtually kill virtual people" in a video game. But when a relationship moves to a "real" level .. on the part of one or both parties .. then you're using real guns and someone WILL get hurt if both are not honest and playing for keeps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

..
. Don't go around and grope attractive women because you'd want to be groped by them...

Dammit Ishy .. you just totally ruined my entire night's fun. *pouts* 8^D

PS: Give up on Dogboat. I did. Beating someone with a book because one passage makes sense to you is a sure sign of a narrow and inflexible perspective. (underlines "inflexible")

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Dogboat Taurog wrote:

 

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.

 

 

I did read all posts in this thread by now. I merely reply to posts in the order that I read them, so that I don't have to go back later.

 

As for the rest of your post: No, that is not called respect. It's pretty clear that you don't respect me, just as I have never been able to respect you or your intolerant views.

If the above is an expression of your personal brand of morality, you can keep your morals to yourself. I'll stick with my personal morals, which are a bit more tolerant, inclusive, and simply more moral in my own subjective opinion.

PS: You only embarrass yourself by trying to pass off your own small-minded views as Kantian ethics, and by lumping Kant in with Aristotle. I have my doubts that you read either one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Darrius Gothly wrote:

 

Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

..
. Don't go around and grope attractive women because you'd want to be groped by them...

Dammit Ishy .. you just totally ruined my entire night's fun. *pouts* 8^D

PS: Give up on Dogboat. I did. Beating someone with a book because one passage makes sense to you is a sure sign of a narrow and inflexible perspective. (underlines "inflexible")

 

no need for that.

oh its you, in that case all you can do is make it up as you go along.

but yes give up, you know i'm right.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i doubt if you have either, or perhaps it was too much for you.

your moral standpoint leaves a lot to be desired.

i cant respect you if you agree with deceit.

and your little dig about child avatars sums you up as grasping at straws.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Darrius Gothly wrote:

I do agree, those wishing to keep their "bendedness" a secret
should
 answer along the lines of "I don't disclose RL stuff." There's plenty of people that prefer to keep SL and RL separate for no reasons other than they just do not want the two to intermingle. Thus
refusing to answer with a definitive yes or no keeps you safe within the flock of "no comments"
.

Of course it does. :smileywink:

 

Then, there's the strange and tragic case of that one woman, can't remember her name, but she was indeed a woman, who spent two weeks having to go through her entire friends list apologizing for the actions of a guy she knew who demanded not only audio, but video proof, down to the flesh, of her gender and identity then went farther and demanded video proof of the existence and likeness of her 3 year old daughter after she dared refuse to support his efforts to destroy another avie because he didn't immediately disclose his gender to a female friend of his.

Upon suggesting an alternate but very reasonable reason why things might not be as demonic as they seemed, and refusing to cowtow to the demands of said guy herself, said guy hired people outside of SL who ripped through her personal life online until they were able to find her job, called and bugged her co-workers with questions, harrassed her on GChat and MSN Messenger, sent a notecard to all of her friends and her partner that she was a liar and a man, attempted to organize a boycott of the SL club she danced at, and flew a banner with the coordinates of her SL home from the top of a megaprim monstrosity he erected on a plot a few down from hers, with a huge question mark on it, and redirected the tp landing point of his own defunct store to said plot for over a week.

All of which, when dealt with as one, helped to force her out of SL, abandoning her home and over 18000m worth of property she had spent a fortune and endless time converting into her own slice of paradise and sharing with those who happened by.

That's my definition of "safe within the flock". What's yours again?


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Dogboat Taurog wrote:

but yes give up, you know i'm right. 

 

You're subtle but patently incorrect association between "giving up" and "being right" is yet another sign of the futility of arguing with you. There are many reasons for giving up .. being "wrong" is probably no more common than being "right". (Especially when it comes to humans.) When one "gives up", it simply indicates an acceptance that further effort will not alter the outcome.

And having just typed that, I am forced to ask of myself "Do I really expect this outcome to change?"

Umm .. nope. *click*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm,  i have to say that SL is a product of the SL users mind..

It took me a little while to get used to that too..Im actually a furry in SL, (thats a furred animal  to noobs), im not one in real life, i am a human being  like you are..im actually not doing anything on SL at the moment, but i used to do some builds, just for me, of what it might look like if humans were a fox or a dog or cat in real life..I dont mean neko, i mean as in houses and cars, etc but furry based, it was actually quite fun..(probably even a bit of furry role play lol).

I think what might be hinted at here, as in someone actually believes the avatar to be the actual person in real life..

some people actually are in SL who they are in RL, im not doubting that, if they want to get into a "relationship" with another avie, fine, i say, just make sure you are aware of who the other person actually is and what country they live in, quite often you will only find that they say they live in another country 10,000 miles away, or they just disappear and you cant contact them..and yes i was aware of this before i even joined SL..

But quite frankly, im not going to stop being a furry or a insect just because someone else thinks it is weird.

Edit..and btw, Lynda Klossovsky is not my name in real life.. ROFL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Kascha Matova wrote:

... a story that honestly breaks my heart ... 

That's my definition of "safe within the flock". What's yours again?

 

The "no comment" answer is that third alternative in a universe of (what some people insist MUST be) only two answers. It prevents one being forced into lying or telling the truth and shifts the responsibility for the next action back onto the questioner.

Clearly the man in the story you related had no interest in truth at all. He was more intent on controlling and manipulating someone and simply used "gender honesty" as his tool to achieve that goal. It's also obvious, to me anyway, that he had no moral restraint whatsoever. (Don't they call that type of personality "sociopathic"?)

Once he had chosen the woman as his next victim, most likely the only thing that would have stopped him was direct physical intervention. (Or an even "sweeter" victim that he could not resist ... but if that distracting victim caved easily or didn't pan out rapidly enough, he'd be back to the woman again.)

Personally? I vote for "direct physical intervention." (Yo! Dude! *THWACK* Back off!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


 

You're subtle but patently incorrect association between "giving up" and "being right" is yet another sign of the futility of arguing with you. There are many reasons for giving up .. being "wrong" is probably no more common than being "right". (Especially when it comes to humans.) When one "gives up", it simply indicates an acceptance that further effort will not alter the outcome.

And having just typed that, I am forced to ask of myself "Do I really expect this outcome to change?"

Umm .. nope. *click*

 

when it comes to humans?

lol.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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."

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

Gives Carole a big hug! :smileywink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Darrius Gothly wrote:

 

Kascha Matova wrote:

... a story that honestly breaks my heart ... 

That's my definition of "safe within the flock". What's yours again?

 

The "no comment" answer is that third alternative in a universe of (what some people insist MUST be) only two answers. It prevents one being forced into lying or telling the truth and shifts the responsibility for the next action back onto the questioner.

Clearly the man in the story you related had no interest in truth at all. He was more intent on controlling and manipulating someone and simply used "gender honesty" as his tool to achieve that goal. It's also obvious, to me anyway, that he had no moral restraint whatsoever. (Don't they call that type of personality "sociopathic"?)

Once he had chosen the woman as his next victim, most likely the only thing that would have stopped him was direct physical intervention. (Or an even "sweeter" victim that he could not resist ... but if that distracting victim caved easily or didn't pan out rapidly enough, he'd be back to the woman again.)

Personally? I vote for "direct physical intervention." (Yo! Dude! *THWACK* Back off!)

Hmmm...I'd have slapped him until my fingers went numb if I could have. It may not have given me back what I lost but it would give me a nerve-impulse conduction problem with a cause I could reflect on with a smile for the rest of my days. Those can be unexpectedly hard to come by  :womanhappy:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Darrius Gothly wrote:

 

Dogboat Taurog wrote:

but yes give up, you know i'm right. 

 

You're subtle but patently incorrect association between "giving up" and "being right" is yet another sign of the futility of arguing with you. There are many reasons for giving up .. being "wrong" is probably no more common than being "right". (Especially when it comes to humans.) When one "gives up", it simply indicates an acceptance that further effort will not alter the outcome.

And having just typed that, I am forced to ask of myself "Do I really expect this outcome to change?"

Umm .. nope. *click*

Well, it is clear that he is confused about the definition of moral and what is nothing more than prejudice and homophobia.  Anyone who was not born to his accepted genetic configuration must have been spawned from the seed of the devil.  This has little to do with honesty or morals and everything to do with fear. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Ima Rang wrote:


Darrius Gothly wrote:

 

Dogboat Taurog wrote:

but yes give up, you know i'm right. 

 

You're subtle but patently incorrect association between "giving up" and "being right" is yet another sign of the futility of arguing with you. There are many reasons for giving up .. being "wrong" is probably no more common than being "right". (Especially when it comes to humans.) When one "gives up", it simply indicates an acceptance that further effort will not alter the outcome.

And having just typed that, I am forced to ask of myself "Do I really expect this outcome to change?"

Umm .. nope. *click*

Well, it is clear that he is confused about the definition of moral and what is nothing more than prejudice and homophobia.  Anyone who was not born to his accepted genetic configuration must have been spawned from the seed of the devil.  This has little to do with honesty or morals and everything to do with fear. 

 

you havent got the jist of this thread at all have you?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Dogboat Taurog wrote:

 

Ima Rang wrote:


Darrius Gothly wrote:

 

Dogboat Taurog wrote:

but yes give up, you know i'm right. 

 

You're subtle but patently incorrect association between "giving up" and "being right" is yet another sign of the futility of arguing with you. There are many reasons for giving up .. being "wrong" is probably no more common than being "right". (Especially when it comes to humans.) When one "gives up", it simply indicates an acceptance that further effort will not alter the outcome.

And having just typed that, I am forced to ask of myself "Do I really expect this outcome to change?"

Umm .. nope. *click*

Well, it is clear that he is confused about the definition of moral and what is nothing more than prejudice and homophobia.  Anyone who was not born to his accepted genetic configuration must have been spawned from the seed of the devil.  This has little to do with honesty or morals and everything to do with fear. 

 

you havent got the jist of this thread at all have you?

 

Yes, I did indeed get the gist of this thread. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Ima Rang wrote:


Dogboat Taurog wrote:

 

Ima Rang wrote:


Darrius Gothly wrote:

 

Dogboat Taurog wrote:

but yes give up, you know i'm right. 

 

You're subtle but patently incorrect association between "giving up" and "being right" is yet another sign of the futility of arguing with you. There are many reasons for giving up .. being "wrong" is probably no more common than being "right". (Especially when it comes to humans.) When one "gives up", it simply indicates an acceptance that further effort will not alter the outcome.

And having just typed that, I am forced to ask of myself "Do I really expect this outcome to change?"

Umm .. nope. *click*

Well, it is clear that he is confused about the definition of moral and what is nothing more than prejudice and homophobia.  Anyone who was not born to his accepted genetic configuration must have been spawned from the seed of the devil.  This has little to do with honesty or morals and everything to do with fear. 

 

you havent got the jist of this thread at all have you?

 

Yes, I did indeed get the gist of this thread. 

 

so why did you say i was homophobic?

im not.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Dogboat Taurog wrote:

 

Ima Rang wrote:


Dogboat Taurog wrote:

 

Ima Rang wrote:


Darrius Gothly wrote:

 

Dogboat Taurog wrote:

but yes give up, you know i'm right. 

 

You're subtle but patently incorrect association between "giving up" and "being right" is yet another sign of the futility of arguing with you. There are many reasons for giving up .. being "wrong" is probably no more common than being "right". (Especially when it comes to humans.) When one "gives up", it simply indicates an acceptance that further effort will not alter the outcome.

And having just typed that, I am forced to ask of myself "Do I really expect this outcome to change?"

Umm .. nope. *click*

Well, it is clear that he is confused about the definition of moral and what is nothing more than prejudice and homophobia.  Anyone who was not born to his accepted genetic configuration must have been spawned from the seed of the devil.  This has little to do with honesty or morals and everything to do with fear. 

 

you havent got the jist of this thread at all have you?

 

Yes, I did indeed get the gist of this thread. 

 

so why did you say i was homophobic?

im not.

 

You wrote: 

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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Ima Rang wrote:


Dogboat Taurog wrote:

 

Ima Rang wrote:


Dogboat Taurog wrote:

 

Ima Rang wrote:


Darrius Gothly wrote:

 

Dogboat Taurog wrote:

but yes give up, you know i'm right. 

 

You're subtle but patently incorrect association between "giving up" and "being right" is yet another sign of the futility of arguing with you. There are many reasons for giving up .. being "wrong" is probably no more common than being "right". (Especially when it comes to humans.) When one "gives up", it simply indicates an acceptance that further effort will not alter the outcome.

And having just typed that, I am forced to ask of myself "Do I really expect this outcome to change?"

Umm .. nope. *click*

Well, it is clear that he is confused about the definition of moral and what is nothing more than prejudice and homophobia.  Anyone who was not born to his accepted genetic configuration must have been spawned from the seed of the devil.  This has little to do with honesty or morals and everything to do with fear. 

 

you havent got the jist of this thread at all have you?

 

Yes, I did indeed get the gist of this thread. 

 

so why did you say i was homophobic?

im not.

 

You wrote: 

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

 

 

and?

did i say gay?

its not about being gay is it, its about deceit..

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Dogboat Taurog wrote:

 

Ima Rang wrote:


Dogboat Taurog wrote:

 

Ima Rang wrote:


Dogboat Taurog wrote:

 

Ima Rang wrote:


Darrius Gothly wrote:

 

Dogboat Taurog wrote:

but yes give up, you know i'm right. 

 

You're subtle but patently incorrect association between "giving up" and "being right" is yet another sign of the futility of arguing with you. There are many reasons for giving up .. being "wrong" is probably no more common than being "right". (Especially when it comes to humans.) When one "gives up", it simply indicates an acceptance that further effort will not alter the outcome.

And having just typed that, I am forced to ask of myself "Do I really expect this outcome to change?"

Umm .. nope. *click*

Well, it is clear that he is confused about the definition of moral and what is nothing more than prejudice and homophobia.  Anyone who was not born to his accepted genetic configuration must have been spawned from the seed of the devil.  This has little to do with honesty or morals and everything to do with fear. 

 

you havent got the jist of this thread at all have you?

 

Yes, I did indeed get the gist of this thread. 

 

so why did you say i was homophobic?

im not.

 

You wrote: 

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

 

 

and?

did i say gay?

its not about being gay is it, its about deceit..

 

 

I doubt Dogboat is your real name.  Are you being deceitful or are you merely utilizing a tool that allows you to remain anonymous? 

What do deceit and deviant sexual fantasy have in common?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


I doubt Dogboat is your real name.  Are you being deceitful or are you merely utilizing a tool that allows you to remain anonymous? 

What do deceit and deviant sexual fantasy have in common?

 

 

when i signed up to SL i didnt know what to expect so i erred on the side of caution.

whats your excuse, assuming Ima Rang isn't your real name?

a deviant can be any sex any age any orientation, you are making 2+2 = 5 and scraping the bottom of the barrel in a vain attempt to score vanity points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Dogboat Taurog wrote:

 

 

You're subtle but patently incorrect association between "giving up" and "being right" is yet another sign of the futility of arguing with you. There are many reasons for giving up .. being "wrong" is probably no more common than being "right". (Especially when it comes to humans.) When one "gives up", it simply indicates an acceptance that further effort will not alter the outcome.

And having just typed that, I am forced to ask of myself "Do I really expect this outcome to change?"

Umm .. nope. *click*

 

when it comes to humans?

lol.

 

 

Umm .. yeah .. humans. That would be those living beings on this planet that make up most of the Internet crowd. Living in a house with various non-human inhabitants, I find that my scope of understanding is not just limited to those of my own species. (At least .. my attempts at understanding are not just limited to humans.)

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