ellestones

i only put this topic into the discussion as the underlying context of the thread is what do men think about. And when they say what they think about, then the follow up to this is, why do men think as they do ? so Jack said what he thinks. So I follow up with why does he think like that? and what might be a contributing reason for it? on the topic I raised then as both you and I are not from the USA and live in countries that do have basic universal healthcare then we often find it odd to see a country largely similar to ours where they don't have this. While it does perplex me I think that is for the USA people to work this out for themselves. They are doing this now, debating the pros and cons, and advocating their respective positions thru the democratic electoral process. This is a good thing and I have faith that the USA people will arrive at a solution which will be acceptable to a significant majority of USA people is kinda on topic this subject, if only abstractly, as it does mean US men do think about this also. And in doing so then how they see their relationship to other men and to women will impact on their thinking

if we were to replace male with female, he with she, and effeminize with dehoyden, would the assertion hold up to scrutiny. If so then why so? And if not then why not? maybe a why not is that there is no such thing as a alpha female. Or a why not may be than while there may be alpha females then the assertion doesn't make any sense. Or a why not may be the argument is only true when applied to alpha males and not to alpha females because alpha females are not alpha males. Or an if so may be that it only applies to alpha males and alpha females when we believe it to be true. Or an if so may be that unless a person is a alpha female then they will never understand the assertion

we made it to 11 pages and we are still here. And it hasn't derailed all that much. Wellm apart from the occasional driveby from the odd roman and maybe a parthian or two. But 11 pages of quite substantive discussion is pretty good

i read the paper linked to. and looked into it a bit from a reading of available UK government programmes for victims of domestic abuse and violence then what government funding is provided, is on a gender-neutral basis. For example, the funding guidelines for victims requiring alternative housing. The principal issue raised in the paper https://www.gov.uk/guidance/homelessness-code-of-guidance-for-local-authorities/chapter-21-domestic-abuse a reading of this shows that at least on the equality aspect of government funding, the UK government has got this right my main take out from the Mankind paper is that the current level of government funding for both men and women victims is not enough to adequately meet the actual need the other reference Mankind makes to funding, is for research. The paper doesn't provide any details on what the current level of research funding is, just that it is not enough. This said tho, under-funding of research is a legitimate concern. When research funding is inadequate then that has influence on the UK local councils who are required to make informed decisions when authorising funding grants to the victim support providers. Mankind does acknowledge that the councils are improving their informative decision-making processes, however I would be supportive of any increase in research funding when the outcome helps to improve decision-making

when I type into google search: "domestic violence against women". I get 183 million links when I type into google search: "domestic violence against men". I get 165 million links so I cant see how domestic violence against men is something that we would never know from the coverage

yes. Some sources have reported only on the uptick in the numbers for men. Jack may frequent sites where there is a preponderance of such male bias articles. If so then is not surprising that Jack believes as he does

assuming that the experience-enabled parcel owner allows you to stay when you don't accept. Which seems to be the case so far for you for roleplay games like Bellimora is talking about then what typically happens is that if we don't grant experience permissions, or remove ourselves from the experience, or detach the experience game HUD, then we get sent home what Bellimora is requesting as a roleplay/game host then they would like is to at least be able to detect if a player has changed their environment settings on the game arena parcel, and when so be able to eject them from the game/roleplay i think this is a perfectly reasonable request. LL experience-enabled games like Linden Realms eject us from the game when we detach the game HUD. On the simple basis that we are are there to play the game. If not then bye. People who play these types of games accept this happening to them as normal and expected behaviour

Jack is maybe taking his view from news sources that have recently reported on the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) latest annual survey. Probably news sources selectively headlining that the statistical life expectancy of US men is declining, with no mention that it is also declining for US white women a significant contribution to the decline being more deaths due to opiod overdose and suicide in recent years comparative to previous years. Whats also not mentioned by news sources that selectively headline, is that since 1999 (when the CDC report was first available) the rate of suicide for US men has increased by 26%. While for US women it has increased by 53% i won't link to anything, as most reputable news sources have reported on this. Search for news on keyword: US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

the sleeves may have been rigged for the Slink classic hands. Not the Slink bento hands. I have a similar issue with pretty much most of my hand jewels which I got prior to bento. The classic hands should be in your Slink folder. Try them and see if this is the case edit: What DemeraraGirl said

good on you Abadoxx

there is also a massive volume of well-made quality clothes, hair, shoes and accessories being virtually given away these days for 0$ and $1. Lots of it not seconds anymore as has often been the case in the past over the last few weeks I have put together my season change wardrobe, as I do every season. Ended up with a full season wardrobe - 12 new flawless high quality complete outfits - for L$46 in total. While this is good for my purse, is not sustainable for creatives if this continues

in the USA, putting onerous demands on people is generally resolved as a constitutional issue eventually, when the State (local or national) impedes a class of people's ability to exercise their constitutional rights. There is no unconditional US Constitutional right to participate in the elective process. I find it a bit odd that there isn't, but thats the way it is. Convicted felons for example, are in some States excluded from the elective process by local state law this makes it easy for some US lawmaking bodies to do what they do in impeding the elective process for their own ends. This impediment can in some states be resolved as a local State constitutional matter, in others not and when so can be taken forward as a civil rights matter - a matter of law and not of constitutional rights. Can a class of persons, for no reason other than belonging to that class be impeded, and in impeding those persons is the effect of this unlawful discrimination ? the comparative parallel to the SL case I think is: The electoral office is unduly closed for business (or is non-existent) in only those areas where a class of people predominately reside. When so then I would assert that this is unlawful discrimination

i agree with your wider point. Using a belief as justification to discriminate against a class or classes of people there is a difference tho in the specifics of the cases being discussed. In the baker case the ban is against a specific class of person while the premises are open for business. In the SL case the threat of banning is against everyone, infidels, non-infidels and non-observers alike, who breach the premises while closed. In the SL case there is no discrimination

i was in the original thread that kicked it all off. I mentioned about the ToS regarding the advertising sign on the parcel as pictured, which is trolling apparently. Then it all went downhill from there i also liked when the person who had also complained about the service provided, did come back and apologise to the OP for complaining. Not sure if liking an apology from anyone is also trolling. Don't see how tho

i vote for this

as Rolig mentions we can use llUnsit on any agent is lots of ways we can design our scripts, different approaches, methods, etc my approach is to not use SitTargets at all. I take the same approach commonly use in danceballs, which have a controller script tracking who and when permissions are needed, x number of slave scripts to handle the individual permissions and 1 of each animation file, all in one prim of the linkset. The approach works for the different use cases. Touch to animate. Sit to animate. Collide to animate in your first posted script you were on this approach - a controller script. Using the change event to track who sat, who got off, then passing an informational link message to the other scripts in the linkset, which is how controller + slaves method generally work by design the controller+slave method means that we can have multiple avatars all sitting on 1 prim ( and any number of prims) at the same time, up to the number of slave scripts. When another avatar sits and we don't have a slave script for them then unsit that extra person only the controller script has a change event. When an avatar sits on the prim, we can get their key and save it into our list of current sitting agents. Move the agent (as a linked prim) to a designated position/rotation relative to the prim. Assign the agents key to the next available slave script (link message) to handle their animation permissions. When they stand then controller sends link message to that slave script to stop animation, and then removes the agent from the list

someone in this case being a owner of a shop/club/rental/etc i agree with this. A person who has a business and then puts up banlines to prevent people from doing business with them is going to find that some of that business is going to be lost like we are looking for a rental, take the teleport and banlines. We think whaa! How dumb is that. So IM the landlord: Excuse! me, do you know your parcel banlines are up? Next day the vendor replies: Yes. I don't work on Saturdays. Its my day off. We go: Really? whats that gotta do with putting up banlines. And they say: Its my land. I can do what I like with it ok! And we go: Ok! bye. And think: what a egg! oh! well. And go rent off some one else so yes. Actions like this by a parcel owner can affect their business. Buts that is their call, not ours

consider the use case where Avatar1 is already sitting. Then Avatar2 sits the script that Avatar1 is sitting on will fire the change event also and they will be asked for permissions again (which is ok in this case) but it will also send a link message that Avatar1 has sat, even tho they are already sitting. Same will happen with Avatar1 and Avatar2 scripts when Avatar3 sits a fix for this can be to put a test in

seems to me that the objections to the shopkeeper's action, seem to have more to do with the reason the shopkeeper has given for closing their shop than the closing of the shop itself i personally don't care what a shopkeepers reason are for closing their shop, or on what days. Its their shop

their parcel, their stuff, and their banlines, and their request: Please don't take my stuff today

@ Solar 😛

Its their parcel and their stuff. I would think that any ordinary normal person who on encountering parcel banlines would go: oh! ok and go to another shop no matter what day it is

good, now I can help you clarify in an SL context do you think it is acceptable behavior for a person in SL to take what they want from another person's parcel when that person has put their banlines up and said: Please don't take my stuff ?

Ethan, if you are confused then is best to say why and get some clarification. Or you gunna be confused forever

Tamara, Tamara this is way outside what LittleMe reported. The report is that if people cam shop from outside the parcel the shop owner will ban them. To get banned for cam shopping means that the shopkeeper has locked their doors (put their parcel banlines up) the RL equivalent of cam shopping is on finding the shop locked shut, reaching in thru an open window, grabbing what you want and leaving the money. That's not acceptable behaviour