LlazarusLlong

This year it will take the form of a wake . . .

Is real life Pla- -to's cave shadows?

I wonder why anybody bothers to play Tiny Empires at all. [i have been informed that it necessitates lots of alts, so LL encourages it to boost their apparent numbers.]

irihapeti wrote: Cathy Foil wrote: Getting paid to do a job such as DJing isn't selling therefore my idea doesn't come into play in this situation this thought is quite common in the RL as well. That performing artists do not sell their talents Real performing artists don't consider DJs as such. Isn't that right, Venus?

irihapeti wrote: LlazarusLlong wrote: irihapeti wrote: a society in this context is the inhabitants of a territory (societal domain) subject to the rules/laws of the domain as your example with the Queen of England shows. Not all laws are applied equally to all inhabitants. That a law treats her differently from her subjects doesnt make her not a member of the society Now you are contradicting yourself. First you say a society is composed of those who are subject to the territory's laws. Then you admit that the Queen of England is not subject to the territory's laws. Then you claim that she is still a member of that society. yes. It is a contradiction is a reality of church-based law making. The sovereign in the monarchist tradition is appointed by "God". An appointment by birthright (divine right) codified in law and accepted by the subjects unlike in the republican tradition where the Head of State is elected by the people that subjected people accept the rule of divine right and subject themselves to it doesnt negate the sovereign's place in the society. If anything it reinforces their place. The point you were making earlier Things I deny the existence of, inter alia: Society, God Things I accept the existence of: The Queen as part of the ruling elite as a result of her ancestors killing their opponents.

You are going to discover the fultility of your rant when this thread is relocated to role play section, whether you like it or not. Also, tonight, before you go to bed, for some reason which you are not going to fully understand, you will take off both your socks, and put them back on again, but inside out. You may then consider this: Just because you occasionally have flashes of lucidity during which it occurs to you that you are being controlled by a higher power, does not mean that the higher power is not permitting you to have such moments of enlightenment; and he's laughing at you. Also, why don't you try out the RL Viewer...

Ignorance of the law is never a valid defence.

Drake1 Nightfire wrote: irihapeti wrote: LlazarusLlong wrote: irihapeti wrote: i reira he kotahi huinga mo te reo ingarihi, e kotahi mo te mea katoa atu A na tēnei wāhanga he hoki te reo ingarihi اگر آپ انگریزی کو درست کرنا چاہتے ہیں تو اس کے بعد ہی انگلش فورم پر جانے Zhah nindol naut l'eralk? Ah, drow elfen meltingpotese. "Take a bit of Slovak, Mix it with Yoruba, Add a touch of Catalan, And a little bitty bit of that Euskeran too..." Perhaps you're right, and we need an "Other languages" subforum. And perhaps an "ESLer English Practice" subforum" too - or maybe the "Hippy's Friends" thread does that job. [With apologies to Cook and Greenaway, Blue Mink, and particularly Herbie Flowers of the big blue bass.]

Things appear to be stabilising in GD now, so that the top ten tend to be nine valid discussion threads and one which should be elsewhere but which has been so derailed - by intent - that it could not really be moved without confusing the denizens of another section. Unless the situation degrades significantly, I shall not be reporting further. My job here is done!

Drake1 Nightfire wrote: Month, Day, Year is Totally right Aren't there two syllables in "Year" in Boston, as well as most of the Southern States? [Or is that me misunderstanding "Yee hah!"]

Drake1 Nightfire wrote: LlazarusLlong wrote: And do you invoke the Eleventh Commandment in such circumstances? " Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican." why would i invoke that? Reagan always had problems reading his lines, didn't he. His speechwriters also forgot that you should always maintain a separation between state and church. And there had already existed an Eleventh Commandment long before bad actors became President of the USA. Here is the full list, according to my author: #1 – Thou shalt pay public homage to the god favored by the majority without giggling or even smiling behind your hand. #2 – Thou shalt not make any graven image of a sort that would annoy the powers-that-be or rival the official god. #3 – Thou shalt not take the name of thy Lord God in vain or language which will offend the powers-that-be. #4 – Go to Church on Sundays and Holy Days. Smile and be pleasant but not too smarmily a hypocrite. Don’t let children disrupt the sanctity of the day. Support the Church with deeds and money, but not too conspicuously. #5 – Honor thy Father and thy Mother where anyone can see you. But once you leave home, live your own life. Don’t let them lead you around by the nose. #6 – Thou shalt not commit murder, which means killing wrongfully. Other sorts of killing come in several flavors and each sort must be analyzed independently. #7 – Thou shalt not get caught committing adultery. Don’t get pregnant or catch a Social Disease. Do not shame your spouse and family in public. #8 – Thou shalt not steal because of pride in yourself. However, like killing, exceptions may come along and must be analyzed each time. i.e. Stealing to feed children or save a life. #9 – Thou shalt not tell lies that can hurt other people, but also not tell the unvarnished Truth which may do as much damage. #10 – Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s possessions or spouse openly lest they get suspicious or angry. #11 – Thou shalt not get caught.

irihapeti wrote: a society in this context is the inhabitants of a territory (societal domain) subject to the rules/laws of the domain as your example with the Queen of England shows. Not all laws are applied equally to all inhabitants. That a law treats her differently from her subjects doesnt make her not a member of the society Now you are contradicting yourself. First you say a society is composed of those who are subject to the territory's laws. Then you admit that the Queen of England is not subject to the territory's laws. Then you claim that she is still a member of that society.

irihapeti wrote: a society in this context is the inhabitants of a territory (societal domain) subject to the rules/laws of the domain Your definition has become circular. And therefore renders your argument meaningless.

AlexandriteGem wrote: So, the bottomline is, they were purchased on the marketplace legally because they were there before, have not been taken down or sellers prohibited from selling them, therefore it is OK to own and use them? Thanks Yep. Just like rl guns. Except, rather than just being banned, you could get the chair if you use them to do something illegal.

Coby, I presume you meant to say Month, Day, Year Is Not logical [Actually, the logical order is Year, Month, Day . . . ]

Caveat emptor

irihapeti wrote: the teachings and disciplines of the Church are morals based. You cant exclude the effect this has on a society whose morals have been shaped by the Church over many centuries. I am not sure which "church" you are referring to, but the leaders of the organised religions that I know about have all historically fallen into that category of power elite I have described above. The "morals" that they have invented and inflicted upon the great unwashed (and uneducated, when they had the power to withhold teaching) were devices by which they could maintain a stranglehold over the behaviour of their subjects. It is noteworthy that many of those who castigated "sinners" seem never to have felt the need to satisfy "moral" criteria themselves, as scandal after scandal in modern times has demonstrated, and I would find it a persuasive presumption that taking advantage of a position of power would have been habitual behaviour in less modern times.

irihapeti wrote: Mr Durkheim doesnt argue that everything must serve a beneficial purpose. You are misunderstanding what the argument is he argues that crime serves a beneficial purpose. It being a legal definition. The benefit is that at any given time as the society evolves, we can measure what is proper conduct for the society and what is improper. And regulate conduct by law if necessary. Is a fundamental this of every society. To define improper and act on this knowledge Durkheim has a huge problem, to which you are implicitly paying lip service, namely, that there is no such thing as "society". "Society" is what the ruling elite use as a name for that which they enjoy having power over. Any benefits will be towards the short-term, and to an extent medium-term - as in the long-term we are all dead, as JM Keynes pointed out - benefit of this all-potent cadre. Proper conduct is anything that will maintain the position of those in power, although they themselves may not need to conduct themselves according to the laws they instigate - take, for example, that the Queen of England has no driving licence, has never passed a driving test, and drives cars that have no registration plates, all of which would be crimes for plebeians. Regulation of the weak by legal means is simply the devolved and delegated modern version of "droit de seigneur". [At least you should be thankful that "droit de prelassement" is no longer considered "proper conduct". This involved a priest being allowed to disembowel one of his congregation to warm his feet in.]

Drake1 Nightfire wrote: Ebbe has already stated that it's business as usual and you should not worry about the future of SL. In other news, when President Obama was asked for a recommendation on which political party to support . . .

Get a microwave oven. They give about the same performance as Apple machines running SL, and are slightly more efficient at heating things up.

Gadget Portal wrote: When your morality conflicts with legality which wins? Morality every time, twice on Sundays. I said morality, not immorality . . .

Option 3: Who cares?

Twenty three Wales Sixteen Ireland

SarahCooney wrote: Who said romance was dead? Most historiolinguistic researchers actually.

JamesKisson wrote: LMAO!!! It could be worse...you could be a gay man like me....every conversation starts with... "Hi." Erm . . . I don't think your sexual orientation has anything to do with the semi-literacy of most players, as most of the uninvited salutations I receive say "Hi". I blame Lindal Kidd, who used to teach people in her classes that if you had nothing interesting to say, say it anyway. That also explains the state of the forums generally. My response is invariably: " 'lo ". Which is entirely reasonable (it's an acceptable and well-known contraction of (Hel)lo, while also having the benefit that it's quick to type and the juxtaposition of juxtapositioning (yes, even deeper self-referential humour) can be interpreted as mildly amusing, allowing the benefit of the doubt to the protagonist by permitting them to demonstrate that they might have some perception and sense of the ridiculous which they could reveal by acknowledging the appropriate nature of my response. Unfortunately (or not) it almost invariably produces the further response "???" although the number of question marks does tend to vary with the keyboard skills, slovenliness, or state of intoxication of the typist. I can then ignore them, as I can those who are so perplexed by my answer that they lose the will to converse further. [While i am posting, might I mention that I have a gay friend who plays a Gorean male inworld; he seem to find this less contradictorily confusing than I do.]