Jump to content
LittleMe Jewell

Inworld Store Closure - Similar to RL Blue Laws

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

After a bit of research, I discovered that there are some who believe that even passively earning money on the Sabbath is wrong.  

 

Most people do not typically cam shop from a neighboring store.  In this case, when she closes, she puts a huge sign up blocking the front door that says the store is closed.  If you touch the sign you will get a notecard explaining everything. If you TP to the store, the TP is rerouted during close time to a location near the property edge and there you will see a sign stating that the store is closed.  That sign also gives a notecard explaining the closure.

In reality, the only people that will be cam purchasing are the ones that saw the 'Closed' sign and decided to buy things anyway because they know how to cam shop. They may or may not have actually received the explanation notecard or read it.  

 

 

While this was the first time in SL that I had encountered something like this, I am definitely not a super worldly person in SL and thus truly figured this was not the first time something like this was done in SL - hence why I started the thread asking.   Based on the postings, nobody else has run into this either, which given the diversity of SL, actually surprises me.

IMO, she is totally entitled to handle her store as she pleases and I think that people should honor her decision.  I can also understand why she'd be disappointed in someone that chose to cam shop anyway.  It's not like the same stuff won't be there the next day with the same prices.  Nobody is going to miss out on any special deal, unless that 24 hour period just happens to be the only time you can be inworld between the time the weekly deals get put out on Thursday until the following Thursday when the new set of deals is put out.

 

Her store may be "closed" but her vendors are still active. She is offering things for sale with her vendors, If I choose to buy, the vendor sells it to me , a simple transaction is completed. Nothing more

 

Edited by BilliJo Aldrin
added stuff
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Billijo in this instance, an active vendor is an offer to sell and I think LL would also see it as such (under the principle of don't put out for sale what you do not want to be sold - also see land sales).  It is an automated replacement for someone standing in the store on your behalf, taking money and giving out the goods so someone is working the Sabbath on your behalf in my opinion.

In addition there are vendor systems that can be chosen which have an easy on/off switch which could be used for such occasions.

I have definitely cammed directly over into shops before and bought stuff so might well have missed such things at the store entrance.  I am not sure we should really be expecting people to have to stick to conventional entrances/exits in a virtual world.  I often TP or sit directly to where I want to be without going through the entrance.

Would I buy something like this knowing the vendor's wishes? No but I couldn't blame someone who did either.

 

Edited by Gabriele Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Nacy Nightfire said:

I did not 'single out" Madeline.  I responded to her post.  And, to correct the misguided notion you have, I didn't obliquely or directly accuse Madeleine of being an anti-semite.  That's your own leap and your own attempt at spin.  It's not an accusation I made in my post, veiled or otherwise.  I did, however,  point out the insensitivity of Madeleine's post, aware how her post might appear to others.   It certainly raised my eyebrows.  Henry Ford's disgusting past has been front and center in the news this week, and clearly it's a sensitive issue for many people and not just those of the Jewish faith.  I direct you to the New York Times just this week:  "A Mayor’s Effort to Play Down Henry Ford’s Anti-Semitism Backfires."  Similar recent articles have been written in the Washington Post.

And as we've established here that no one has been accused of being an anti-semite here, except Henry Ford, I will mention that I've known a number of atheists over the years who dislike and are dismissive of all followers of religion or even just some religions and not others. Being an atheist in no way absolves a person of the potential to be a prejudiced individual.  I'm not sure where you adopted the idea that being an atheist would equate being a person incapable of prejudice.  That makes no sense.  

Madeleine, undoubtedly, can defend her own position here.  She's smart enough to know that quoting (twice!) Henry Ford within this topic was provocative.  Especially at a point where this post had  evolved into a discussion of Jewish religious practices, and where she paired the quote along with a comment that related her anecdote of earning interest in a bank while observing Sabbath.   I don't know Madeleine, but I've read of her few posts over the years. She appears to pride herself as being a "thinker".   On that basis I'm entitled to make whatever assumption I want, as may you, and everyone else that posts here.  Indeed, you have the advantage that you personally are acquainted with Madeleine, but this is not a requirement to gain an impression from, and respond to, her post.  We are all here in conversation with complete strangers, hopefully commenting with thoughtfulness.  I certainly give a great deal of thought to my posts.

I understand you want to go to bat for your friend here, but I stand by my comments. Madeleine responded to my post and yet she chose a pass on her Henry Ford comment.   

Please note there's been no attempt to add  "whipped cream" via using term "Dog Whistle".    It's a term that stands on it's own. It's subtle, I know.  In any event I had not definitively stated that her Henry Ford comment was a dog whistle,  I said I hoped it was not.  Madeline has not addressed this either way in her follow up posts.    

And, lastly, I'm perfectly qualified to make an assumption about how the Amish gentleman may have reacted internally to having a customer place him in the position of being forced to be representative of "All things Amish" and his religious practices.  I know how I'd feel in his shoes.  I'd be polite, I might respond, the customer might never know how I truly felt about the matter, but I'd view it as an impertinence.

 

The "Whether you think you can, or think you can't, you're right" is a quote I learned in childhood. I was not aware of Ford's anti-semitism, nor (as I clearly stated in my posts) was I aware of the religion of the two people I queried about their observing the Sabbath. I just read the Wiki page for Ford and I'll now set him next to Lindberg and others on my pile of disappointments. I'll have to figure out how to deal with their positive contributions to society.

There are no qualifications for making assumptions, Nacy. Claiming to have them is a content free statement. Whether one is any good at it is another thing entirely. I did not force my Amish lumber man to be a representative of anything. It's been 20+ years since I met him and I'll never remember all the details of our conversations, but we share some things in common, including home schooling (he, his wife, his children and me) and our connection to wood and the woods. He tried and failed to make a go of maple sugaring. I've sent him a few bottles of syrup over the hears, noting that my friends do it for fun because it's still not economically viable.

And, while you wonder if I'm not living up to my claim of liking to think, I'll wonder if you find the effort so taxing that you can't be bothered to spell my name right or even misspell it consistently.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, this could have a real world version. A person that owns vending machines, yet observes the sabbath could put a sign on their vending machine that says "please respect my religious beliefs and do not purchase a drink  from this machine from sundown friday till sundown saturday.

Yea right.

The whole idea of the Sabbath was to give people a day of rest from their toils, but like everything else was twisted by man to create an almost impossible list of restrictions. I don't know the "politics" of this link, but here's a few restrictions imposed and enforced by the rabbis.:

 In one particular section of the Talmud, a commentary of both oral and written Jewish laws, there are 24 chapters of Sabbath laws! Note some of those man-made Sabbath burdens:

  • No one can carry a load heavier than a dried fig.
  • Nothing larger than an olive can be eaten.
  • Throwing an object into the air with one hand and catching it with the other is prohibited.
  • If the Sabbath overtook you as you reached for some food, the food was to be dropped.
  • No baths, for one might spill water on the floor and inadvertently wash it.
  • Chairs cannot be moved since they might make a rut in the ground, thus plowing.
  • Women cannot look in a mirror lest they be tempted to pluck a gray hair.
  • If ill on the Sabbath, only enough treatment could be given to keep the ill person alive.
  • No sewing, plowing, reaping, grinding, baking, threshing, binding sheaves, winnowing, sifting, dying, shearing, spinning, kneading, separating or weaving two threads, tying or untying a knot, and sewing two stitches.
  • One can only travel 3,000 feet from their home. But if the previous day they had placed food within 3,000 feet of the home, they could go there to eat it. And since the food was an extension of the house, they could then go another 3,000 feet beyond the food.

 http://www.harvestbiblechurch.net/blog/sabbath-legalisms

And lets not forget that at least twice in their history, honoring the Sabbath by refusing to defend their city allowed them to be overrun and thousands of Jews killed.

Edited by BilliJo Aldrin
added stuff
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God helps those that helps themselves.

This was told to me as a joke, but it has a ring of truth to it as well.

Mr Jones was an old man who lived alone in his old house near the coast. He was a pious, very religious man and he lived his whole life upon the principal of putting his faith in God.

A hurricane was coming, and an evacuation order was issued. When the police came by to tell him he needed to leave, he shook his fist at them, and proclaimed, "I believe in God, he will protect me and keep me safe".

The police just shook their heads and left.

The storm got closer, the waters started to rise. When it was up to his doorstep, A humvee driven by  the national guard drove up.  Get in quick Mr Jones, get out while you still can.

He just shook his fist at them, and yelled, "go away, I put my faith in God, he will save me and protect me".

The guardsmen just shook their heads and drove off.

The storm came closer, the rain increased, soon Mr Jones' first floor was flood and he went to the second floor. As he peered out into the deluge, a power boat came up, the driver yelled, "Please Mr Jone get in, I can take you to safety".

But Mr Jones just shook his fist and screamed, "no, go away,  I put my faith in God, he will save me and protect me"

The driver of the boat sighed and drove away.

Soon the storm waters rose higher than the second floor, and Mr Jones was forced to climb onto the roof. As he sat there soaked and cold, a bright light appeared and shone on him, illuminating him bright as day.  "I'm here to save you Mr Jones", boomed a voice out of the sky, and a rope ladder dropped in front of him.

Mr Jones shielded his eyes and made out the outline of a helecopter hovering a few feet over his head.

He shook his fist and screamed  "go away, I put my faith in God, he will save me and protect me".

The ladder was withdrawn the spotlight turned off, and Mr Jones was left alone in the raging storm

A short time later, Mt Jones' house collapsed and he was swept away in the deluge and drowned.

Up in heaven God was down by the pearly gates, looking over the new arrivals when  he saw Mr Jones looking rather confused and bewildered.

He shouted out, "Mr Jones what are you doing here?"

Mr Joes quietly said, "My Lord, I put my faith, my life in your hands, but you didn't come to me, you didn't save me".

God just shook his head and said, "Jones, you stupid fool, I sent you a humvee, a boat, and a helecopter, what more did you expect me to do?"

The End

 

 

 

Edited by BilliJo Aldrin
changed a word
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

The whole idea of the Sabbath was to give people a day of rest from their toils, but like everything else was twisted by man to create an almost impossible list of restrictions. I don't know the "politics" of this link, but here's a few restrictions imposed and enforced by the rabbis.:

Traditionally Sabbath was a day set apart to rest AND worship. Researching the Sabbath in modern traditions though it is not at all like those who were obsessed with rules or the letter of the law. For example, take a look at how this modern Christian practices her sense of Sabbath:

https://relevantmagazine.com/god/taking-modern-day-sabbath

"So, for the past several months, I have observed my own modern-day Sabbath. Unlike the traditional Christian Sabbath or Jewish Shabbat, there are no hard and fast rules. Rather, the modern-day Sabbath is more personal and intentional. The modern Sabbath is about delegating a time to focus on what I have instead of searching for something new, a time to disconnect from work and technology in order to reconnect with family and friends and self, a time to quiet the external noise so I can hear my own powerful internal voice.

The modern Sabbath is an intentional effort to “turn off and tune in.” As a result, the modern-day Sabbath is also more personal than the traditional Sabbath."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Drake1 Nightfire said:

Our actions are NOT causing this change, it MAY be speeding t slightly, but we are not the cause. Talk about arrogance. Thinking we have the ability to change the planets climate. 

Why are you more of an authority than the thousands of Scientists who say humans are causing climate change. Is that not arrogance?

Edited by Luna Bliss
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many other traditions have Sabbaths...here's a few examples:

* Buddhist rest day
 The Uposatha has been observed since Gautama Buddha's time (500 BCE), and is still being kept today in Theravada Buddhist countries. It occurs every seven or eight days, in accordance with the four phases of the moon. Buddha taught that Uposatha is for "the cleansing of the defiled mind", resulting in inner calm and joy. On this day, disciples and monks intensify their practice, deepen their knowledge, and express communal commitment through millennia-old acts of lay-monastic reciprocity.

* Cherokee rest days
The first day of the new moon, beginning at sunrise, is a holiday of quiet reflection and prayer among the Cherokee. Monthly fasting is encouraged, for up to four days. Work, cooking, sex and childbirth were also prohibited during the empty moon days, called "un-time" or "non-days"; childbirth during these days was considered unlucky. The Cherokee new year, the "great new moon" or "Hunting Moon", is the first new moon in autumn, after the setting of the Pleiades star cluster and around the time of the Leonids meteoric shower.

* Wicca
The annual cycle of the Earth's seasons is called the Wheel of the Year in Wicca and neopaganism. Eight sabbats (occasionally "sabbaths", or "Sun sabbats") are spaced at approximately even intervals throughout the year. Samhain, which coincides with Halloween, is considered the first sabbat of the year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Why are you more of an authority than the thousands of Scientists who say humans are causing climate change. Is that not arrogance?

scientists follow the money. When a scientific field is perverted to satisfy a political agenda the only way to keep the money coming is to produce "acceptable" results.

Its not unlike anthropology which years ago became a pseudo-science.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

The "Whether you think you can, or think you can't, you're right" is a quote I learned in childhood. I was not aware of Ford's anti-semitism, nor (as I clearly stated in my posts) was I aware of the religion of the two people I queried about their observing the Sabbath. I just read the Wiki page for Ford and I'll now set him next to Lindberg and others on my pile of disappointments. I'll have to figure out how to deal with their positive contributions to society.

There are no qualifications for making assumptions, Nacy. Claiming to have them is a content free statement. Whether one is any good at it is another thing entirely. I did not force my Amish lumber man to be a representative of anything. It's been 20+ years since I met him and I'll never remember all the details of our conversations, but we share some things in common, including home schooling (he, his wife, his children and me) and our connection to wood and the woods. He tried and failed to make a go of maple sugaring. I've sent him a few bottles of syrup over the hears, noting that my friends do it for fun because it's still not economically viable.

And, while you wonder if I'm not living up to my claim of liking to think, I'll wonder if you find the effort so taxing that you can't be bothered to spell my name right or even misspell it consistently.

Ok your last statement I am fond of.  Yes!  I do find it too challenging to spell your name correctly/consistently, and anyone's else's name here on the forum if it is over 5 letters. Mea culpa!!    (and please don't be alarmed if I forget your face if we meet in a public area, as I also have poor facial recognition 😉).  I notice your friends refer to you as Maddy, perhaps for this reason.  As you and I are not SL friends so I wouldn't presume to call you by your nickname.  Please everyone feel free to butcher my name with abandon and save your thinking for bigger things. I'm sure many folks here are also fighting an aggressive spell check system that insists on bending you to it's will.   Also, please note that Nacy is not my actual name, I'm not offended if you mangle it, and I don't take points off for spelling. I am not a person enamored with her my love of thinking, therefore spelling, in particular, is far down on the list of what is important, to me. As an added warning, I also play loose and free with the rules of punctuation, except where these things matter, such as anywhere but the forums.  However, since you are very sensitive about your Second Life name I very much apologize for inconsistently spelling it wrong.  

Everyone, here continually makes both good and bad assumption.  It's entirely disingenuous to state otherwise.  To tell people not to make assumption, is ridiculous.  Will their assumptions frequently be incorrect? Yes.  That is the beauty of hitting the reply button as assumptions can be corrected.  We can add clarity, an explanation, a retraction, an apology for offending.  Your friend for example (I will not attempt to spell her name)  believed that I had accused you of being an anti-semite.  Did she want to believe I made that statement?  I'm not sure, I think probably not.  She was angry. She was also incorrect.  I corrected her about her assumption.

We have here a forum thread that is discussing a very sensitive issue, religion.  Most people got it badly wrong in guessing the actual faith and I guess for a better word I'll say "intent" of the shop owner.    I sat back without commenting and found myself going from irritated to angry at the direction the post was going.  I reached my limit with your "banking" and your Henry Ford remarks as I assumed I was  now reading the post of someone who I believed had  the maturity, intelligence and experience to know better.  Wrong or correct assumption?  Only you can say.  Let's now say we can chalk up your remarks within the context of the thread as simply a fluke and coincidence.  Henry Ford was an ardent Nazi admirer. I'm going to take a leap and guess I'm a bit older then you, which may account for my awareness of Ford's very dicey ideology.  I've always been taught this in (horror!) public school.No,  I was not home-schooled and I grew up in a very diverse part of the US  where it was taught that one should view Ford exactly like Lindberg and his ilk.  Perhaps Ford admired HItler's efficiency.  I'm not sure, it's too distasteful a subject to bother to examine closely.  This week Henry Ford has been front and center in the news, therefore I AGAIN! incorrectly assumed you would have read the NYT or WaPo, or something of the like, and that your choice to bring his name up at this moment, and in the context of the discussion an "eyebrow raiser."   Again, the beauty of incorrect assumptions is they can be corrected if the other poster chooses either elaborate, explain or make an alteration.  I'm not certain your response fit that expectation.

Many, many people across the word of all different faiths died in WWII.  Many defenseless minorities -  such as Gypsies, Jews, homosexuals, and children with mental handicaps were slaughtered in a chilling systematic way and in a manner that was horrific in it's modern efficiency,  in the hands of a regime that Henry Ford admired.  

In light of what I wrote,  what was it about  maple-sugaring and your Amish lumberman suited either as a response to what I wrote or to the to the OP?  Well that's a head-scratcher.  A folksy deflection?  I'm not sure.  But I hold to the belief that entering into discussions that put people on the spot to discuss and or defend their religious practices, sexual orientation, financial situation, etc. are in very poor taste.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

scientists follow the money. When a scientific field is perverted to satisfy a political agenda the only way to keep the money coming is to produce "acceptable" results.

That’s not how science works lulz. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:
24 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Why are you more of an authority than the thousands of Scientists who say humans are causing climate change. Is that not arrogance?

scientists follow the money. When a scientific field is perverted to satisfy a political agenda the only way to keep the money coming is to produce "acceptable" results.

Its not unlike anthropology which years ago became a pseudo-science.

Science is not perfect and is subject to corruption, for sure.

But what would be the advantage for Scientists who say man-made climate change is real? What benefit are they receiving? What money are they getting from this?

Doesn't it make more sense to think that those who oppose man-made climate change are getting paid by the fossil fuel industry? When I research Scientists who oppose often I find this is the case.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

one of the greatest scientists of modern times was disgraced and had all his honors taken away from him not too long ago

James Watson the father of genetics  make a simple observation that he refused to retract.

He said there is no reason to believe that populations of people breeding in isolation should develop inteligence at the same rate or to the same degree, and at the end of the day it will be shown that the cause is genetic.

For refusing to repudiate his simple statement  and grovel at the feet of our masters this old man has been publicly pillaried as  "scientists" of all stripes line up to denounce him.

"Eppur si mouve"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

That’s not how science works lulz. 

no not real science but thats how pseudo science works

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Science is not perfect and is subject to corruption, for sure.

But what would be the advantage for Scientists who say man-made climate change is real? What benefit are they receiving? What money are they getting from this?

Doesn't it make more sense to think that those who oppose man-made climate change are getting paid by the fossil fuel industry? When I research Scientists who oppose often I find this is the case.

95 % of global warming gasses is water vapour which is all from natural causes. That leaves 5% contribution from other gasses. Assuming CO2 is even a green house gas, 95% of all CO2 comes from natural sources,

So scientists are claiming 5% of 5% of of global warming gases is the entire driving force of global warming?

if man disappeared tomorrow nothing would change, natural sources would mostly replace man made sources.

Man made global warming is not driven by science, its driven by ideology, an attempt at income redustribution a global scale, and swindlers like Al Gore are making billions off of this scam.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Humans are not the cause of global warming or climate change. Humans are, however, the cause of the acceleration

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Science is not perfect and is subject to corruption, for sure.

But what would be the advantage for Scientists who say man-made climate change is real? What benefit are they receiving? What money are they getting from this?

Doesn't it make more sense to think that those who oppose man-made climate change are getting paid by the fossil fuel industry? When I research Scientists who oppose often I find this is the case.

I got my check from Exxon today, i'm gonna go buy an SUV

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

I got my check from Exxon today, i'm gonna go buy an SUV

 

Hope gas stays cheap for you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

95 % of global warming gasses is water vapour which is all from natural causes. That leaves 5% contribution from other gasses. Assuming CO2 is even a green house gas, 95% of all CO2 comes from natural sources,

So scientists are claiming 5% of 5% of of global warming gases is the entire driving force of global warming?

if man disappeared tomorrow nothing would change, natural sources would mostly replace man made sources.

Man made global warming is not driven by science, its driven by ideology, an attempt at income redustribution a global scale, and swindlers like Al Gore are making billions off of this scam.

95% of figures quoted on the internet are made up.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

But what would be the advantage for Scientists who say man-made climate change is real? What benefit are they receiving? What money are they getting from this?

Grant money for researching climate change, from both sides, is readily available. Of course money is involved. It always is!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

So scientists are claiming 5% of 5% of of global warming gases is the entire driving force of global warming?

Probably depends on what scientists you ask. Nasa disagrees on those 5% numbers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Hope gas stays cheap for you!

I've always bought my cars by the pound. Fuel efficiency has never ever been a consideration

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

Man made global warming is not driven by science, its driven by ideology, an attempt at income redustribution a global scale, and swindlers like Al Gore are making billions off of this scam.

So the majority of Scientists have banded together to fake the results of their expriments because they have an ideology, socialst in nature, where their primary goal is to redistribute wealth?  They would do this through taxing carbon I assume, or not allowing the wealthier nations to grow their economy?
Do you think your sensitivity to redistribution of wealth might be an ideology that you frame all arguments with, using it to assign motivation to situations? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...