KanryDrago

No it is precisely the point. Then it was homosexuals that were targeted because they had desires outside the so called normal. Now it others being targeted and demonised. Exactly the same disease Phil and you and Fiona are the virus

So should we arrest all the members of that rugby team who had their plane crash in the Andes and only survived by eating the dead team members for depravity? After all they survived but it wasn't civillised Or how about all those people who like to tuck into the placenta nicely fried with onions after giving birth

Ah so what makes you think your judgement is so right. I am sure those people who cast the word depravity at Turing felt exactly the same as you do Phi. Ah but then you must be right after all you are Phil Deakins

1) There is no such thing as normal, not you nor me, nor anyone you meet 2) People with death fetishes from either side killer or being killed are actually more common than you might think. a very small percentage of them ever act out those fantasies in real life 3) RP in a safe space like this can reduce pressure to act on fantasies So you see it as a bad thing why? And just to point out for everyone that fantasises about killing there are more people that fantasise about being killed. Here is an article you might find interestin https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-excess/201404/dying-it

You consider it depravity, homosexuality was considered a depravity not so long ago and punishable by law as well. Do you think therefore all homosexuals should go to a psychiatrist to get cured?

Ted Bundy was mentally ill and a psychopath. Having a sexual fetish makes you a psychopath no more than having depression. Do most pyschopaths have a sexual fetish : yes they do Are most people with a sexual fetish a psychopath : No they arent Do a large number of humans have an "aberrant sexual fetish" : Yes about 36 to 40 percent according to most research See you have proved my point equating having a sexual fetish to being a psychopath

Having a sexual fetish doesn't make you a bad person in the rest of your life. It is merely something you have and often have no way of changing. Most of us in rl know someone who has a sexual fetish that we would find surprising or even shocking. Unless they tell us we would never actually know however because in every other way they are a perfectly ordinary person. It is this sort of thinking that bothers me they like to do x it turns them on therefore they must be evil in all ways. This is the sort of thinking that equates being gay with being a sexual predator for example or going back to the fifties being an unmarried mother with being mentally ill in need of incarceration in an asylum. Many choose to explore the fetish they have in SL to try and understand it better and where it comes from. All that was needed here for the mature content side of things was for they guy or girl to flip the land to private so the op couldnt see in or enter. As I have said all along a civillised human being talks to a neighbour first then escalates if that doesn't work and I do believe that is what would have happened(the talk to I mean) if the op was more tolerant of others perfectly legal in sl sexual preferences rather than one of the moral outrage brigade

You waste your breath I am afraid the neo puritans are amongst use, they seek to control what we say,say and think all we can do is fight their abusive philosophy so they can't visit lives of misery on people with their judgemental behaviour

So you understand how a reasonable person comes to the conclusion that is the nature of the content rather than the mere fact of tos violation that motivates you both things you said to repudiate being a civil human being first

No abusing you for being morality police because that is how you come across, if this was a straightforward sex act I have no doubt you would be advocating the op should have talked to the guy about making his land private. You made it clear you had an issue with the type of contact so why act all surprised when people figure that is what is driving your zero tolerance stance

I havent tried to dissuade anyone from making an AR I have suggested merely that they make an effort to resolve it in a rational human way first and give people the benefit of the doubt before ringing up the authorities. If it cant be sorted that is when you involve the authorities. As to getting me in trouble rl fail to see how that will happen however may I suggest you move to Iran they love morality police there

Never been ar'ed ever not even on the forum. Let me guess you are one of these who constantly spies on your rl life neighbours with your hand over your phone in case they doing anything you can call the cops about? See I can speculate wildly too. My complaint is simple rather than just saying hey can you take this stuff private first you wasted support time on it straight away when they could have been doing something better and I suspect you wouldnt have if it was merely mature content and didn't spike you outrage meter

what total bollocks real life you are playing music in your yard its disturbing me but you cant see it should before I let you know. Of course this never happens when people are diturbing each other in real life. Even easier in SL where the offender may not have even realised you can see in as he can't see into other residences and assumes his is set the same way. You merely object to the content and found a convenient way to whine about it while trying to appear like a reasonable human being. Something you failed at.

to derail the thread a little I should point out the following link Fantasies about being cooked and eaten are common for both male and female https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-excess/201604/vorarephilia-and-being-eaten-sexual-pleasure SL is a fantasy land whether you agree or not many come here to live out fantasies which they cannot live out in real life or would never live out in real life. It does not make them bad people, it does not mean they would ever do such a thing in real life. They are merely exploring a fantasy they have in a safe way and that should be none of anyones business except theirs

It offends my morality should not make things intolerable and preclude personal communication to resolve the problem first. There are many things in life I find morally unacceptable however I would not seek to ban them. They are morally unacceptable to me and others would likely go "What the hell dude, why does that even bother you" If someone was doing something I felt morally unacceptable but legal I still like to think that I would talk to them first and explain why it bothers me and why they shouldn't do it in public and I would hope they would listen. Only if they didnt would I then refer them to a higher authority for arbitration

The ar button is always overused it should be a last resort not a first. Just as law is always overused in rl and end up blowing neighbour disputes out of all proportions. Was the guy a troll quite probably and would he have refused again quite possibly after which I fully support the AR response. The stalker defense does not work here however as if the op was worried about the guy stalking her then she would not have posted it on the forum. The sooner we as human beings learn to communicate and sort our own issues out rather than immediately going the nuclear higher authority route the sooner the world becomes a slightly nicer place. Giving someone the benefit of the doubt and a chance to rectify the problem is rarely a mistake in my experience, often they don't even realise they are causing an issue and are apologetic when it is pointed out. As to the morality side, I jump on things like that as experience has taught me that its a "give them an inch they take a mile" situation. First they go for something that seems reasonable to a lot of people. Then they use it as precedent and shift the goal posts ever downwards. In my country we now have the situation where things it is legal to do in the privacy of your own home cannot be video'd for example because it breaks the porn laws. Even if its just of you and a partner and for private consumption. The reason I raised the issue in this thread is I strongly got the impression from the op that it was the subject of what was visible that was the reason for the ar rather than merely the fact it was adult content. Maybe I am wrong and the op would have AR'ed any adult content.

and all you had to do is ask him to set his parcel so no one could see in problem solved. If he refuses then you AR The gay reference was pointing out merely that morality should not come into it as there is always someone who will be morally outraged by something and that is what the issue is all about not the fact you could see in but that you didn't like what you saw. If it had been a couple having missionary sex on a bed then I am sure it would have been merely an im asking to set the parcel private and not an ar. It was the fact that it offended the op's morality that prompted the ar not the tos violation

You do no we live in a world where homosexuals still get hung legally? Why is your morality better than theirs perhaps we should ask SL to start banning people for homosexual activity as well? What makes your morality the point we say SL should draw the line? Yes I agree you should not have it shoved in your face and they were wrong but when we start judging what consenting adults should and should not be allowed to do behind closed doors then we are on a slippery slope where there will be always someone who thinks what we like doing should be banned.

What is naive about it? if even half the time you resolve the issue with an im that is the number of support tickets halved in one stroke. I have had problems with neighbours in the past and so far always found a simple im does the trick and removes the annoyance

The support system is overloaded because people don't spend a few minutes trying to resolve the issue with their neighbour with a simple im and instead report it

What two or more consenting adults do is frankly none of your business. Who died and made you the morality police. Yes they broke TOS, yes they shouldn't have. However what they wish to do between themselves you have no right to judge other than to ask they don't make you watch. I am sure there are many things you do that others would find morally repulsive just as much. When you set yourself up as the morality police you hand that power too others to. The only issue should be consent. Equating this to the lgbt issues is exactly correct In the past Homosexuality is wrong they should be legally prohibited from doing it even though they are both consenting adults You now X is wrong they should be prohibited from doing it I see no difference, I do see a hypocrite

It would be nice to think even if an AR was submitted the lindens would take the view. Make it comply to TOS than outright ban or remove. I don't know if this happened here or if the owner point blank refused to comply with TOS in which case good riddance.

Doubtful it seems more likely than the op wanted it stopped altogether as it doesn't fit their version of morality than they merely wanted it out of sight. The same reasoning as caused the persecution of the LGBT crowd through the years. It is not enough that I don't see you do it you should not be doing it in the first place

Your premise is flawed from the first, even if we ignore the "I want to be paid for irritating people side" The difference between SL and a game such as warframe is that currency here can be cashed out to real world currency. If for example your idea was implemented and users generated between all of them 1,000,000 lindens a day or the equivalent worth then that costs (1,000,000/2500 )x(approx) 10 us$. Don't worry I will do the maths for you 4000us$ a day, about 120,000 us$ a month, 1,440,000 million us$ a year. But my currency can't be cashed out I hear you say only used towards tier or buying things. Any used on tier means its converted into linden as lindens aren't spent on tier or buying things and are available to cash out. Now the other thing you may argue is users wouldnt generate 1,000,000 lindens worth a day So lets look at that with some deliberately low ball park figures I gather from what you say you want to generate worthwhile amounts for a user so lets call it 100l$ per hour logged on. Assume an average user logs on for 2 hours. We can therefore get a rough feel for how many users this covers by multiplying the average concurrency ( about 40,000) by 12 ( which is the 24 hour day divided by the average 2 hour log on period) So for users we get 40000 x 12 = 480,000 for linden generated per user we get 100 x 2 ( for the 2 hour period) = 200 therefore for total linden generation we get a figure of 480,000 x 200 = 96,000,000 hmmm seems like my 1,000,000 a day was genererously low doesn't it now This means that rerunning the figures with the new amount the following amounts in us$ would be in effect removed from the second life economy either by people buying less lindens or from cashing out lindens they no longer need to use daily 384,000 monthly 11,520,000 yearly 140,160,000 Now therefore to make your idea fly and not bankrupt the labs you would either need to reduce the amount earnt per user by a factor of probably at least 100 so 1 linden$ per hour per user or severely reduce the number of earning users. As everyone is earning by doing activities in your scenario you are in effect needing to reduce the population of SL to 1% of its current size

well if you enjoyed drinking it the good news is that its a renewable resource