Jump to content
Scylla Rhiadra

The UnQueering of Second Life

Recommended Posts

then it has parallels with classroom killings all over the world, people are just pawns in other peoples games.

hold on to nothing and it wont let you down eh?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Dogboat Taurog wrote:

then it has parallels with classroom killings all over the world, people are just pawns in other peoples games.

 

 

Um, well, no . . .

A killing involves . . . killing.  Which is a rather different thing than what one finds here.

 

It's about context and expectations, Dogboat.  If you walk into McDonald's expecting fine French cuisine, your disappointment will be owing to your own ignorance, or your willful disregard of the main function of McDonald's.  If you enter SL thinking that it is an RL dating agency, or Facebook, that is your preconception, and ultimately the disappointment is your responsibility, not that of everyone else who does understand the central point of this place.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Scylla Rhiadra wrote:

 

Carole Franizzi wrote:

 

If this is what Scylla intended by her OP - the cleaning up of SL to make it more suitable for the general public - I have to agree that, although there may be economic reasons why such a step is necessary, I feel that something very precious offered by SL - a use which may appear to be pretence or play, but in actual fact is a profound human experience, pretty much unique in its nature - would be lost. I personally would be sad to see that happen.

This is just a personal note - my own subjective opinion. It takes about 5 minutes after joining SL to figure out that avatars and operators probably don't "match", perhaps not even in gender. If that is an issue, there's a myriad of porn and dating sites out there. Log out and go to them. That's not to say I'm unsympathetic when I hear of some guy deeply involved on an emotional level with a woman who turns out to be a man in RL. That stinks. Really it does. But the sign-on page is hardly deceptive. It states very clearly the aim of the "game" - be who you want to be. It's pretty damn obvious that most will want to be younger, prettier, more muscular, sexier...and that some will want to be a different gender...

 

This in many ways is what the OP is suggesting . . . but with a twist that makes it, perhaps, seem "nastier" than even your approach may seem to some, Carole.

The OP consciously looks at this same issue, not from the perspective of the ethics and motivations of "A," the person using SL to explore identity, and not, in a sympathetic manner, at the hurt feelings of "B,"
the one who feels "betrayed" when he or she discovers that SL is not an RL dating agency
.  These are the "classic" terms in which this argument has tended to be framed.

What I am trying to suggest is that it is a
good thing
that "B" is knocked off balance, and finds his or her comfortable and complacent expectations about identity and role play upset.

No, I don't think that "hurting" people is good -- ideally, "B" has understood what SL is about before he or she starts getting involved here, and will temper his or her expectations about what he or she will find here accordingly.

But my central point has been that
the discomfort, the insecurity, and maybe even sometimes the pain that we feel here is educative and, in the final analysis, may do more to produce an understanding of the nature of identity, and tolerance for those who don't conform to simplistic notions of gender and sexuality. 

Again, though, I'd hope that that can be accomplished without leaving someone an emotional wreck.  Maybe everyone in SL should wear a tee shirt that says "Things Are Never What They Seem."

 

Yes, yes, yes, Totally agree. Shift the context to racial identity too, to get the full picture. To wander the SL world in a black skin, for example, when you're white in RL, is one of those things that everybody, including the newly-admitted minors maybe ought to be obliged to do. It's an interesting experience to feel that you are still "you" even when the colour of skin you have is darker.

To experiment with a different gender (something I have done also) is also an eye-opener. I see nothing wrong with it at all except a huge amount of potential benefits which I'd like to think might just rub off in real-life.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Dogboat Taurog wrote:

SL may be a dreamscape for some, but not for all.

its your world your imagination goes the blurb, and
that should include respect for others and their feelings
.

Real life could be considered a dreamscape.

the wise err on the side of caution and a moral path.

PS, how long will it be until you begin to forget which is which?

 

 

 

Might I suggest you teach by example and not by words? What you say might sound noble, were it not for the fact that you demonstrated your respect for others by calling a person with sexual identity issues "diseased"...

You'll have to forgive me if I disregard anything more you have to say on this topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Carole Franizzi wrote:

 
Shift the context to racial identity too, to get the full picture. To wander the SL world in a black skin, for example, when you're white in RL, is one of those things that everybody, including the newly-admitted minors maybe ought to be obliged to do. It's an interesting experience to feel that you are still "you" even when the colour of skin you have is darker.

 

 

Yes, agreed:  I talked a bit about race in my original OP, but it got edited out inadvertently when I worked to shorten my text.  (Yes, the OP was originally even longer than it is now!)  I did slip a reference to it into my "Executive Summary" though.

Interestingly, representing a different race might well raise hackles in some quarters that gender-bending doesn't seem to.  Criticisms of "identity tourism" and "voice appropriation" are pretty common responses to this kind of self-representation.  I can see some reason for the concerns -- a white person happily role playing a contented and subservient antebellum slave might be one example -- but overall I think the benefits outweigh the potential hazards.

(Along similar lines, I have a close friend in SL who abhors men playing BDSM women, because she believes it is men misrepresenting the female perspective.  One can see her point -- always remembering that there is no shortage of RL women who are also into BDSM.)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Mags Indigo wrote:

 

Carole Franizzi wrote:

 Okay...I'm going to sprinkle salt in the wound.

You ask at what point should we take responsibility for our actions. At what point our impacting other people's lives and feelings should stop us in our tracks and make us desist from whatever we're doing. Reasonable question. What i've been saying all along is that it's impossible to give a definitive answer to - one that is universal.

You've been thinking, I assume about one-to-one romantic relationships. Lift you focus for a moment and take into account all interactions which take place online. Like in this forum for example.

I said - with a great deal of honesty - that I was aware i had a seperate set of morals for SL from those I have in RL. Do I consider fellow gamers on the same level as RL relationships? Frankly no. Not in most cases, anyway. I signed on here for entertainment and entertainment is what I want. If, on a case by case basis, an interaction becomes "complicated" by deeper feelings I'll deal with it on a case by case basis according to what I feel is a good balance between my "rights" to relax here and not be hassled in any way, and a vague sense of human duty towards others. Sounds nasty? It isn't really. You do the same. You did the same with me.

You second last post to me was highly offensive. I'm not being touchy - it really was. I'm not so thin-skinned that I take offence at everything negative said to me and I'd certainly not take offence at my ideas being challenged - attacked even - and God knows, I'm pretty straight-forward about my ideas and my opinions of other people's ideas - but your post contained elements of a personal attack.

Because you and I are not involved in a romantic sense makes any impact your post had on me a minor one - but it's still going to have some sort of effect. We're aware of that as we pen our posts, as you said, as adults, we should be aware of potential responsibilities and effects. I could be suffering from depression. Have a terminal illness. Be in an extremely fragile psychological state which made your post have devastating effects on me. Did those possibilities occur to you? Possibly they did, but only in a very vague way and anyway, not enough to supplant your own need to let off steam. And that has been my point all along. We ALL do as we please in here, driven by our own needs - and our moral fibre is very very much linked to whatever we crave in any given moment. And no, I'm not depressive/sick/on the brink of suicide - just trying to illustrate my point.

Would you have spoken to me in that way if we'd been discussing in real-life? I sincerely doubt it. Somebody you hardly know and who you've interacted with only a couple of times before, which might amount to a grand total of two hours-worth of conversation - would you accuse them of twisting words, avoiding answering and all because of some nasty hidden agenda that you perceive?? I really, really doubt it.

I think, ironically, you have in your hands, as much as anybody here, all the material necessary to answer your own question. Perhaps, concluding, as I have done, that SL (or online) morality is NOT the same as real-life morality and that we each tend to be less critical of "low moral standards" when they allow us to behave as
we
want.

 

 

 

I will agree that my post was unnecessarily in the offensive - but not meant offensively. At no stage have I said that anyone should desist from doing antything - merely that some thought before doing so should be the least expected from people who are adults. The constant 'changing' in the interpretation of what I wrote made me overly defensive which is quite possibly unforgivable - hence think of the damage someone in a relationship - intense and personal - could suffer to find out that their 'amour' was a sham. Not because of deep hidden issues that they were working through on a virtual platform - but simply because the adult person behind the avi couldn't be bothered giving a thought to any effect they might have had.

We can all manouvre every situation to suit an argument, I don't expect any 'forgivness' for what you see as 'highly offensive' even though I am sorry if you took it like that. My frustration stems from people (and no not just you) constantly skipping over issues by putting up decoys. 

You and I it would seem will always disagree on this one - in my opinion presenting oneself in a virtual world as younger, more beautiful or a different gender/orientation than is RL is fine, however when one then goes to the trouble of convincing someone else that one is truly are 'like that' in RL -in my opinion - it goes from fantasy to deception. And I have never said that anyone 'should' then desist - rather that - even wondering if they should would at least acknowledge that there were human feeling other than their own involved.

Again I apologise for offending you, it was not actually my intention.

 

(Edited for typos)

You keep qualifying your apology, Mags. I didn't "change the interpretation" of what you wrote - I may simply not have fully understood what you meant. You also write: "My frustration stems from people (and no not just you) constantly skipping over issues by putting up decoys". Again, Mags, let me repeat, I was not consciously skipping over issues, nor was I putting up decoys. You'll have to take my word for it that I would have no reason to do such a convoluted and pointless thing.

 

No forgiveness is, however, required. I underlined your rather aggressive treatment of me simply because it served the purpose of a practical example rather than leaving the point I've been trying to get across in the abstract. The fact is that we somehow feel justified in making someone else feel bad (I use SL just for fun/I have a lousy marriage/I had a rotten day at work/I just get frustated when people refuse to understand me) when the motivation is our own. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Carole Franizzi wrote:

 

Dogboat Taurog wrote:

SL may be a dreamscape for some, but not for all.

its your world your imagination goes the blurb, and
that should include respect for others and their feelings
.

Real life could be considered a dreamscape.

the wise err on the side of caution and a moral path.

PS, how long will it be until you begin to forget which is which?

 

 

 

Might I suggest you teach by example and not by words? What you say might sound noble, were it not for the fact that you demonstrated your respect for others by calling a person with sexual identity issues "diseased"...

You'll have to forgive me if I disregard anything more you have to say on this topic.

 

i didnt call someone with sexual identity issues diseased.

why are you so obtuse?

i read the persons post, he was being deceitful and admitted it, that is the disease.

i dont forgive you. you see what you want to see.

good luck with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Carole Franizzi wrote:<snip>

 No forgiveness is, however, required. I underlined your rather aggressive treatment of me simply because it served the purpose of a practical example rather than leaving the point I've been trying to get across in the abstract. The fact is that we somehow feel justified in making someone else feel bad (I use SL just for fun/I have a lousy marriage/I had a rotten day at work/I just get frustated when people refuse to understand me) when the motivation is our own. 

 

Your point has been absolutely taken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Scylla Rhiadra wrote:

 

Dogboat Taurog wrote:

then it has parallels with classroom killings all over the world, people are just pawns in other peoples games.

 

 

Um, well, no . . .

A killing involves . . . killing.  Which is a rather different thing than what one finds here.

but its ok to break someones heart.

 

It's about context and expectations, Dogboat.  If you walk into McDonald's expecting fine French cuisine, your disappointment will be owing to your own ignorance, or your willful disregard of the main function of McDonald's.  If you enter SL thinking that it is an RL dating agency, or Facebook, that is
your
preconception, and ultimately the disappointment is
your
responsibility, not that of everyone else who does understand the central point of this place.

 

but what is the central point of this place?

i think its differerent for everyone and morality should still be key.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I can see, your discussion with Dogboat is similar to one we had about a year ago. If I may quote myself, this time in your defense:

"The loose basket of Western values (Greco-Roman culture modified by monotheistic Judeo-Christian-Islamic beliefs) is not the dominant system in the world today, nor should it be. The value systems of ancient and modern Japan, China, India, Oceania, Africa and the indigenous peoples of the Americas and Australasia are older and as large if not larger than those of the West. To argue that Western values are superior to others is the height of arrogance. The belief that Western values should be imposed on the rest of the world is nothing less than moral bullying."

http://community.secondlife.com/t5/General-Discussions/Vaughan-Vendetta-and-Ishy-Wingtips-will-now-answer-your-Teen/m-p/99627#M10718

I remember so clearly visiting the central mosque in Cairo. A polite and charming student persistently sought to open my eyes to the 'true faith'. He reminded me of a Baptist friend in Louisiana who also tried to convert me to the 'true faith'. The language of both was surprisingly similar to that of Richard Dawkins, who is equally adamant about atheism. Everyone, it seems, thinks he knows the moral 'truth', with the bizarre twist that there is no universal agreement on that 'truth '. Universalism, funny enough, is not universal.

What I find strange is how this type of philosophical discussion arises in a virtual world specifically designed to be an escape from RL. Here we can be fashion models, medieval knights, cyborgs, foxes, cats, Pinocchio marionettes, watermelons, dragons, giant spiders, tiny elves, alpha-male gorillas, Amazon warrior women, corporate suits, steampunks and even RL doppelgangers. Surely, the very nature of SL screams fantasy. To confuse SL with RL - to expect SL to function as an extension of RL - especially when RL is fragmented into a thousand different cultures, each with its own social norms - is naive. As you wisely point out, SL is not a continuum of RL - it is not an email address or a website - it is a new world with new rules.

Because SL is a new world with new rules - with its social norms evolving from a combination of technological features (adjustable avatar appearance, TP, mute, fly, logout etc.) and a wide range of RL cultures - the border between SL and RL is translucent. We are all in Plato's cave with our backs to the door seeing only the shadows of RL dancing in firelight on the walls. Communication between SL and RL, therefore, will be murky at best. We all have to learn to live with this new 'Duality'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Deltango Vale wrote:

From what I can see, your discussion with Dogboat is similar to one we had about a year ago. If I may quote myself, this time in your defense:


"The loose basket of Western values (Greco-Roman culture modified by monotheistic Judeo-Christian-Islamic beliefs) is not the dominant system in the world today, nor should it be. The value systems of ancient and modern Japan, China, India, Oceania, Africa and the indigenous peoples of the Americas and Australasia are older and as large if not larger than those of the West. To argue that Western values are superior to others is the height of arrogance. The belief that Western values should be imposed on the rest of the world is nothing less than moral bullying."

I remember so clearly visiting the central mosque in Cairo. A polite and charming student persistently sought to open my eyes to the 'true faith'. He reminded me of a Baptist friend in Louisiana who also tried to convert me to the 'true faith'. The language of both was surprisingly similar to that of Richard Dawkins, who is equally adamant about atheism. Everyone, it seems, thinks he knows the moral 'truth', with the bizarre twist that there is no universal agreement on that 'truth '. Universalism, funny enough, is not universal.


What I find strange is how this type of philosophical discussion arises in a virtual world specifically designed to be an escape from RL. Here we can be fashion models, medieval knights, cyborgs, foxes, cats, Pinocchio marionettes, watermelons, dragons, giant spiders, tiny elves, alpha-male gorillas, Amazon warrior women, corporate suits, steampunks and even RL doppelgangers. Surely, the very nature of SL screams fantasy. To confuse SL with RL - to expect SL to function as an extension of RL - especially when RL is fragmented into a thousand different cultures, each with its own social norms - is naive. As you wisely point out, SL is not a continuum of RL - it is not an email address or a website - it is a new world with new rules.

Because SL is a new world with new rules - with its social norms evolving from a combination of technological features (adjustable avatar appearance, TP, mute, fly, logout etc.) and a wide range of RL cultures - the border between SL and RL is translucent. We are all in Plato's cave with our backs to the door seeing only the shadows of RL dancing in firelight on the walls. Communication between SL and RL, therefore, will be murky at best. We all have to learn to live with this new 'Duality'.

 

what race, religion or lifestyle does not include decency and honesty?

only second life, and thats only because people can hide behind a mask.

the morally corrupt people have destroyed what could have been a great thing, the rule of thumb here is trust no-one, and its the few ignorant uncaring residents that have ruined it for everyone.

welcome to the house that jack built.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Dogboat Taurog wrote:

 

Deltango Vale wrote:

From what I can see, your discussion with Dogboat is similar to one we had about a year ago. If I may quote myself, this time in your defense:

 

"The loose basket of Western values (Greco-Roman culture modified by monotheistic Judeo-Christian-Islamic beliefs) is not the dominant system in the world today, nor should it be. The value systems of ancient and modern Japan, China, India, Oceania, Africa and the indigenous peoples of the Americas and Australasia are older and as large if not larger than those of the West. To argue that Western values are superior to others is the height of arrogance. The belief that Western values should be imposed on the rest of the world is nothing less than moral bullying."

I remember so clearly visiting the central mosque in Cairo. A polite and charming student persistently sought to open my eyes to the 'true faith'. He reminded me of a Baptist friend in Louisiana who also tried to convert me to the 'true faith'. The language of both was surprisingly similar to that of Richard Dawkins, who is equally adamant about atheism. Everyone, it seems, thinks he knows the moral 'truth', with the bizarre twist that there is no universal agreement on that 'truth '. Universalism, funny enough, is not universal.

 

What I find strange is how this type of philosophical discussion arises in a virtual world specifically designed to be an escape from RL. Here we can be fashion models, medieval knights, cyborgs, foxes, cats, Pinocchio marionettes, watermelons, dragons, giant spiders, tiny elves, alpha-male gorillas, Amazon warrior women, corporate suits, steampunks and even RL doppelgangers. Surely, the very nature of SL screams fantasy. To confuse SL with RL - to expect SL to function as an extension of RL - especially when RL is fragmented into a thousand different cultures, each with its own social norms - is naive. As you wisely point out, SL is not a continuum of RL - it is not an email address or a website - it is a new world with new rules.

Because SL is a new world with new rules - with its social norms evolving from a combination of technological features (adjustable avatar appearance, TP, mute, fly, logout etc.) and a wide range of RL cultures - the border between SL and RL is translucent. We are all in Plato's cave with our backs to the door seeing only the shadows of RL dancing in firelight on the walls. Communication between SL and RL, therefore, will be murky at best. We all have to learn to live with this new 'Duality'.

 

what race, religion or lifestyle does not include decency and honesty?

only second life, and thats only because people can hide behind a mask.

the morally corrupt people have destroyed what could have been a great thing, the rule of thumb here is trust no-one, and its the few ignorant uncaring residents that have ruined it for everyone.

welcome to the house that jack built.

What race, religion or lifestyle does not include moral corruption, indecency and dishonesty? 

SL is not a race, religion, or lifestyle.  It is an online service that caters to imaginations.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Ima Rang wrote:


Dogboat Taurog wrote:

 

Deltango Vale wrote:

From what I can see, your discussion with Dogboat is similar to one we had about a year ago. If I may quote myself, this time in your defense:


"The loose basket of Western values (Greco-Roman culture modified by monotheistic Judeo-Christian-Islamic beliefs) is not the dominant system in the world today, nor should it be. The value systems of ancient and modern Japan, China, India, Oceania, Africa and the indigenous peoples of the Americas and Australasia are older and as large if not larger than those of the West. To argue that Western values are superior to others is the height of arrogance. The belief that Western values should be imposed on the rest of the world is nothing less than moral bullying."

I remember so clearly visiting the central mosque in Cairo. A polite and charming student persistently sought to open my eyes to the 'true faith'. He reminded me of a Baptist friend in Louisiana who also tried to convert me to the 'true faith'. The language of both was surprisingly similar to that of Richard Dawkins, who is equally adamant about atheism. Everyone, it seems, thinks he knows the moral 'truth', with the bizarre twist that there is no universal agreement on that 'truth '. Universalism, funny enough, is not universal.


What I find strange is how this type of philosophical discussion arises in a virtual world specifically designed to be an escape from RL. Here we can be fashion models, medieval knights, cyborgs, foxes, cats, Pinocchio marionettes, watermelons, dragons, giant spiders, tiny elves, alpha-male gorillas, Amazon warrior women, corporate suits, steampunks and even RL doppelgangers. Surely, the very nature of SL screams fantasy. To confuse SL with RL - to expect SL to function as an extension of RL - especially when RL is fragmented into a thousand different cultures, each with its own social norms - is naive. As you wisely point out, SL is not a continuum of RL - it is not an email address or a website - it is a new world with new rules.

Because SL is a new world with new rules - with its social norms evolving from a combination of technological features (adjustable avatar appearance, TP, mute, fly, logout etc.) and a wide range of RL cultures - the border between SL and RL is translucent. We are all in Plato's cave with our backs to the door seeing only the shadows of RL dancing in firelight on the walls. Communication between SL and RL, therefore, will be murky at best. We all have to learn to live with this new 'Duality'.

 

what race, religion or lifestyle does not include decency and honesty?

only second life, and thats only because people can hide behind a mask.

the morally corrupt people have destroyed what could have been a great thing, the rule of thumb here is trust no-one, and its the few ignorant uncaring residents that have ruined it for everyone.

welcome to the house that jack built.

What race, religion or lifestyle does not include moral corruption, indecency and dishonesty? 

SL is not a race, religion, or lifestyle.  It is an online service that caters to imaginations.

 

 

for some, not for all. thats the huge glaring point many are missing.

and i meant civilised, race religion or lifestyle, im suprised i had to point that out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Dogboat Taurog wrote:

 

Ima Rang wrote:


Dogboat Taurog wrote:

 

Snipped for space...

 

what race, religion or lifestyle does not include decency and honesty?

only second life, and thats only because people can hide behind a mask.

the morally corrupt people have destroyed what could have been a great thing, the rule of thumb here is trust no-one, and its the few ignorant uncaring residents that have ruined it for everyone.

welcome to the house that jack built.

What race, religion or lifestyle does not include moral corruption, indecency and dishonesty? 

SL is not a race, religion, or lifestyle.  It is an online service that caters to imaginations.

 

 

for some, not for all. thats the huge glaring point many are missing.

and i meant civilised, race religion or lifestyle, im suprised i had to point that out.

Even civilized races, religions and lifestyles include aspects of moral corruption, indecency, and dishonesty.  You adding the word civilized does not change the intent of the question presented to you.  Nor does it change the fact that SL is not a race, religion or lifestyle...it remains an online service that caters to imagination and not moral obligation. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Ima Rang wrote:


Dogboat Taurog wrote:

 

Ima Rang wrote:


Dogboat Taurog wrote:

 

Snipped for space...

 

what race, religion or lifestyle does not include decency and honesty?

only second life, and thats only because people can hide behind a mask.

the morally corrupt people have destroyed what could have been a great thing, the rule of thumb here is trust no-one, and its the few ignorant uncaring residents that have ruined it for everyone.

welcome to the house that jack built.

What race, religion or lifestyle does not include moral corruption, indecency and dishonesty? 

SL is not a race, religion, or lifestyle.  It is an online service that caters to imaginations.

 

 

for some, not for all. thats the huge glaring point many are missing.

and i meant civilised, race religion or lifestyle, im suprised i had to point that out.

Even civilized races, religions and lifestyles include aspects of moral corruption, indecency, and dishonesty.  You adding the word civilized does not change the intent of the question presented to you.  Nor does it change the fact that SL is not a race, religion or lifestyle...it remains an online service that caters to imagination and not moral obligation. 

 

agreed, there are always the scum that ruin it for everyone else.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Deltango Vale wrote:

From what I can see, your discussion with Dogboat is similar to one we had about a year ago. If I may quote myself, this time in your defense:


"The loose basket of Western values (Greco-Roman culture modified by monotheistic Judeo-Christian-Islamic beliefs) is not the dominant system in the world today, nor should it be. The value systems of ancient and modern Japan, China, India, Oceania, Africa and the indigenous peoples of the Americas and Australasia are older and as large if not larger than those of the West. To argue that Western values are superior to others is the height of arrogance. The belief that Western values should be imposed on the rest of the world is nothing less than moral bullying."


Carole writes:

I'm not sure that what I'm having with Dogboat can be defined as a discussion. He's apparently demonstrating how a civilised and morally-sound person should behave by...erm...being rather rude to people. I think I'll just let him get on with it...

I appreciated your post though. Full of excellent things and I have quoted the best bit.

As a  real-life American friend recently said to me - if you never get off your backside and get out of what village/town/city you live in, you end up believing that your reality is the only one which works, the only valid one and the one against which you should measure everyone else's reality  - which means you can spot a small-town boy or girl a mile away, as their every word will reflect their lack of travel and lack of experience in interacting with other peoples and cultures.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Carole Franizzi wrote:

 

Deltango Vale wrote:

From what I can see, your discussion with Dogboat is similar to one we had about a year ago. If I may quote myself, this time in your defense:


"The loose basket of Western values (Greco-Roman culture modified by monotheistic Judeo-Christian-Islamic beliefs) is not the dominant system in the world today, nor should it be. The value systems of ancient and modern Japan, China, India, Oceania, Africa and the indigenous peoples of the Americas and Australasia are older and as large if not larger than those of the West. To argue that Western values are superior to others is the height of arrogance. The belief that Western values should be imposed on the rest of the world is nothing less than moral bullying."


Carole writes:

I'm not sure that what I'm having with Dogboat can be defined as a discussion. He's apparently demonstrating how a civilised and morally-sound person should behave by...erm...being rather rude to people. I think I'll just let him get on with it...

I appreciated your post though. Full of excellent things and I have quoted the best bit.

As a  real-life American friend recently said to me - if you never get off your backside and get out of what village/town/city you live in, you end up believing that your reality is the only one which works, the only valid one and the one against which you should measure everyone else's reality  - which means you can spot a small-town boy or girl a mile away, as their every word will reflect their lack of travel and lack of experience in interacting with other peoples and cultures.

 

 

 

 

cant be sure if you were refering to me or not, but seeing as you mentioned my name, permit me to assume you were.

as well as being morally lacking you are also hopelessly presumptious.

good manners cost nothing but i only treat good people with good manners.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Dogboat Taurog wrote:

 

Carole Franizzi wrote:

 

Deltango Vale wrote:

From what I can see, your discussion with Dogboat is similar to one we had about a year ago. If I may quote myself, this time in your defense:

 

"The loose basket of Western values (Greco-Roman culture modified by monotheistic Judeo-Christian-Islamic beliefs) is not the dominant system in the world today, nor should it be. The value systems of ancient and modern Japan, China, India, Oceania, Africa and the indigenous peoples of the Americas and Australasia are older and as large if not larger than those of the West. To argue that Western values are superior to others is the height of arrogance. The belief that Western values should be imposed on the rest of the world is nothing less than moral bullying."

Carole writes:

I'm not sure that what I'm having with Dogboat can be defined as a discussion. He's apparently demonstrating how a civilised and morally-sound person should behave by...erm...being rather rude to people. I think I'll just let him get on with it...

I appreciated your post though. Full of excellent things and I have quoted the best bit.

As a  real-life American friend recently said to me - if you never get off your backside and get out of what village/town/city you live in, you end up believing that your reality is the only one which works, the only valid one and the one against which you should measure everyone else's reality  - which means you can spot a small-town boy or girl a mile away, as their every word will reflect their lack of travel and lack of experience in interacting with other peoples and cultures.

 

 

 

 

cant be sure if you were refering to me or not, but seeing as you mentioned my name, permit me to assume you were.

as well as being morally lacking you are also hopelessly presumptious.

good manners cost nothing but i only treat good people with good manners.

 

So you prove completely Carole's point...You only utilize your moral code when it meets your own needs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Ima Rang wrote:


Dogboat Taurog wrote:

 

Carole Franizzi wrote:

 

Deltango Vale wrote:

From what I can see, your discussion with Dogboat is similar to one we had about a year ago. If I may quote myself, this time in your defense:


"The loose basket of Western values (Greco-Roman culture modified by monotheistic Judeo-Christian-Islamic beliefs) is not the dominant system in the world today, nor should it be. The value systems of ancient and modern Japan, China, India, Oceania, Africa and the indigenous peoples of the Americas and Australasia are older and as large if not larger than those of the West. To argue that Western values are superior to others is the height of arrogance. The belief that Western values should be imposed on the rest of the world is nothing less than moral bullying."


Carole writes:

I'm not sure that what I'm having with Dogboat can be defined as a discussion. He's apparently demonstrating how a civilised and morally-sound person should behave by...erm...being rather rude to people. I think I'll just let him get on with it...

I appreciated your post though. Full of excellent things and I have quoted the best bit.

As a  real-life American friend recently said to me - if you never get off your backside and get out of what village/town/city you live in, you end up believing that your reality is the only one which works, the only valid one and the one against which you should measure everyone else's reality  - which means you can spot a small-town boy or girl a mile away, as their every word will reflect their lack of travel and lack of experience in interacting with other peoples and cultures.

 

 

 

 

cant be sure if you were refering to me or not, but seeing as you mentioned my name, permit me to assume you were.

as well as being morally lacking you are also hopelessly presumptious.

good manners cost nothing but i only treat good people with good manners.

 

So you prove completely Carole's point...You only utilize your moral code when it meets your own needs.

 

Would you treat a a liar with respect?

they are beneath my contempt. going back to what Carole said about small town people, im sure many in SL come from a small town and maybe naive, that means they should be taken advantage of and naivety is their fault?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Dogboat Taurog wrote:

 

Ima Rang wrote:


Dogboat Taurog wrote:

 

Carole Franizzi wrote:

 

Deltango Vale wrote:

From what I can see, your discussion with Dogboat is similar to one we had about a year ago. If I may quote myself, this time in your defense:

 

"The loose basket of Western values (Greco-Roman culture modified by monotheistic Judeo-Christian-Islamic beliefs) is not the dominant system in the world today, nor should it be. The value systems of ancient and modern Japan, China, India, Oceania, Africa and the indigenous peoples of the Americas and Australasia are older and as large if not larger than those of the West. To argue that Western values are superior to others is the height of arrogance. The belief that Western values should be imposed on the rest of the world is nothing less than moral bullying."

Carole writes:

I'm not sure that what I'm having with Dogboat can be defined as a discussion. He's apparently demonstrating how a civilised and morally-sound person should behave by...erm...being rather rude to people. I think I'll just let him get on with it...

I appreciated your post though. Full of excellent things and I have quoted the best bit.

As a  real-life American friend recently said to me - if you never get off your backside and get out of what village/town/city you live in, you end up believing that your reality is the only one which works, the only valid one and the one against which you should measure everyone else's reality  - which means you can spot a small-town boy or girl a mile away, as their every word will reflect their lack of travel and lack of experience in interacting with other peoples and cultures.

 

 

 

 

cant be sure if you were refering to me or not, but seeing as you mentioned my name, permit me to assume you were.

as well as being morally lacking you are also hopelessly presumptious.

good manners cost nothing but i only treat good people with good manners.

 

So you prove completely Carole's point...You only utilize your moral code when it meets your own needs.

 

Would you treat a a liar with respect?

they are beneath my contempt.

 

 

 

It seems that you are not entirely engaged in this discussion for the sake of discussion, but instead, using it as a mechanism to harass and demean those that you don't care for.  I think this stands out with these types of statements since it is clear that since Carole was stating opinions and not asserting statements of fact, that there is no cause for any one of us to believe or accuse one another of lying. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Dogboat Taurog wrote:

 

Would you treat a a liar with respect?

they are beneath my contempt. going back to what Carole said about small town people, im sure many in SL come from a small town and maybe naive, that means they should be taken advantage of and naivety is their fault?

 

 

 

na·ive·té or na·ïve·té

<script type="text/javascript">// play_w2("N0006100") // </script>

 (n**Only uploaded images may be used in postings**://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/lprime.gif" border="0" align="absBottom" />, nä-)

n.
1. The state or quality of being inexperienced or unsophisticated, especially in being artless, credulous, or uncritical.
2. An artless, credulous, or uncritical statement or act.
The naive are not exclusively only capable of being taken advantage of...it is conceivable that naivete could cause them to unwittingly take advantage of others...It works both ways. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Ima Rang wrote:


Dogboat Taurog wrote:

 

Ima Rang wrote:


Dogboat Taurog wrote:

 

Carole Franizzi wrote:

 

Deltango Vale wrote:

From what I can see, your discussion with Dogboat is similar to one we had about a year ago. If I may quote myself, this time in your defense:


"The loose basket of Western values (Greco-Roman culture modified by monotheistic Judeo-Christian-Islamic beliefs) is not the dominant system in the world today, nor should it be. The value systems of ancient and modern Japan, China, India, Oceania, Africa and the indigenous peoples of the Americas and Australasia are older and as large if not larger than those of the West. To argue that Western values are superior to others is the height of arrogance. The belief that Western values should be imposed on the rest of the world is nothing less than moral bullying."


Carole writes:

I'm not sure that what I'm having with Dogboat can be defined as a discussion. He's apparently demonstrating how a civilised and morally-sound person should behave by...erm...being rather rude to people. I think I'll just let him get on with it...

I appreciated your post though. Full of excellent things and I have quoted the best bit.

As a  real-life American friend recently said to me - if you never get off your backside and get out of what village/town/city you live in, you end up believing that your reality is the only one which works, the only valid one and the one against which you should measure everyone else's reality  - which means you can spot a small-town boy or girl a mile away, as their every word will reflect their lack of travel and lack of experience in interacting with other peoples and cultures.

 

 

 

 

cant be sure if you were refering to me or not, but seeing as you mentioned my name, permit me to assume you were.

as well as being morally lacking you are also hopelessly presumptious.

good manners cost nothing but i only treat good people with good manners.

 

So you prove completely Carole's point...You only utilize your moral code when it meets your own needs.

 

Would you treat a a liar with respect?

they are beneath my contempt.

 

 

 

It seems that you are not entirely engaged in this discussion for the sake of discussion, but instead, using it as a mechanism to harass and demean those that you don't care for.  I think this stands out with these types of statements since it is clear that since Carole was stating opinions and not asserting statements of fact, that there is no cause for any one of us to believe or accuse one another of lying. 

 

i wasn't accusing Carole of lying, i was asking you a question.

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:

 

Carole Franizzi wrote:

 

Deltango Vale wrote:

From what I can see, your discussion with Dogboat is similar to one we had about a year ago. If I may quote myself, this time in your defense:

 

"The loose basket of Western values (Greco-Roman culture modified by monotheistic Judeo-Christian-Islamic beliefs) is not the dominant system in the world today, nor should it be. The value systems of ancient and modern Japan, China, India, Oceania, Africa and the indigenous peoples of the Americas and Australasia are older and as large if not larger than those of the West. To argue that Western values are superior to others is the height of arrogance. The belief that Western values should be imposed on the rest of the world is nothing less than moral bullying."

Carole writes:

I'm not sure that what I'm having with Dogboat can be defined as a discussion. He's apparently demonstrating how a civilised and morally-sound person should behave by...erm...being rather rude to people. I think I'll just let him get on with it...

I appreciated your post though. Full of excellent things and I have quoted the best bit.

As a  real-life American friend recently said to me - if you never get off your backside and get out of what village/town/city you live in, you end up believing that your reality is the only one which works, the only valid one and the one against which you should measure everyone else's reality  - which means you can spot a small-town boy or girl a mile away, as their every word will reflect their lack of travel and lack of experience in interacting with other peoples and cultures.

 

 

 

 

cant be sure if you were refering to me or not, but seeing as you mentioned my name, permit me to assume you were.

as well as being morally lacking you are also hopelessly presumptious.

good manners cost nothing but i only treat good people with good manners.

 

So you prove completely Carole's point...You only utilize your moral code when it meets your own needs.

 

Would you treat a a liar with respect?

they are beneath my contempt.

 

 

 

It seems that you are not entirely engaged in this discussion for the sake of discussion, but instead, using it as a mechanism to harass and demean those that you don't care for.  I think this stands out with these types of statements since it is clear that since Carole was stating opinions and not asserting statements of fact, that there is no cause for any one of us to believe or accuse one another of lying. 

 

i wasn't accusing Carole of lying, i was asking you a question.

Mhmm.

It depends on what they were lying about.  If someone asked them if the jeans they were wearing made their ass look big and they responded with an untruth to protect someones feelings...I would respect them.   If there was proof that the lie had caused RL hardship...and I'm excluding hurt feelings, but honest RL hardships, financial ruin, loss of life, etc., of course I would not respect them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok would you respect somebody who you had befriended on a sexual basis in SL who you found out later was not who they really were at all and were actually a different sex to you?

is that better?

(bad taste in clothes not included as that is subjective).

ps it isnt right to exclude hurt feelings from any equation or situation imho.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Dogboat Taurog wrote:

ok would you respect somebody who you had befriended on a sexual basis in SL who you found out later was not who they really were at all and had been playing you for a fool all along?

is that better?

Well that is a bit of a tricky question to answer because it is highly dependent on how strongly one is tied to the ideal that I will only chat sechsy talk with the opposite gender.

My personal feeling on the subject is, I suspect, very different that of many others...

I don't believe that human emotion and connections should be gender based.  In my RL, I find females attractive, but I am not sexually attracted to them.  That being said, I don't deny that the possibility exists that I could become very attracted to their charm, intelligence, shared dreams, aspirations, common experiences or interests.  If in SL a woman was playing a male avatar and all of those things were present and it led to pixel intimacy, I'm not sure that I would lose my mind because I found out they were female.  I would not feel like a fool because in my imagination, I was engaging with a male and everything that I found attractive about them still exists, only the image in my mind has now been changed.  My RL remains intact, my RL body remains untouched by a female...I don't see the big deal.  I'm very secure with my RL sexuality and I don't find it the least bit disconcerting that I may have exchanged some sechsy talk with the same gender.  I realize that is probably not a universal feeling...but that is what I love about SL, I am connecting with people, not genitalia.  My mind is active, not my RL body. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...