Dogboat Taurog

Darrius Gothly wrote: Dogboat Taurog wrote: of course lecter wasnt normal, because of his education and understanding he could see further into most criminal minds than most ever could. this is the point which you so spectacularly missing. Are you equating "criminal minds" with "normal people"? I don't believe I'm the one missing the point. noooo lol. maybe drink some coffee and come back eh?

Darrius Gothly wrote: And Mr. Lecter was by NO means an example of the "normals". Thank you for providing a citation that excellently illustrates the warped types in every group. of course lecter wasnt normal, because of his education and understanding he could see further into most criminal minds than most ever could. this is the point which you so spectacularly missing.

Darrius Gothly wrote: Void Singer wrote: Mayalily wrote: [...] I can't understand why they allow rape sims in the TOS. That's quite baffling to me in the first place and kind of coconuts imo. I don't get why people are into it either, but it's allowed because it's really just a ridiculous misuse of the word... look up "Rape Fantasy" and you'll see what I mean.... and why it fuels so mush idiotic macho behavior... If ever something something needed the labels self-contradictory and self-defeating, that's one that should filed near the top. I'm gonna incur the Wrath of the Dreaded Scylla here but ... My real-life experiences on this planet have at various times involved interaction with people with some pretty strange and off-beat preferences. Yes, I have known and been friends with women (and men) that got intense satisfaction from playing out Rape Fantasies. While some of them were decidedly "off" in the sense that you could just tell there was something twisted inside their soul or psyche, the majority weren't any more visibly different than the average human being. Even to those that knew them well (co-workers, family and friends for example), they were no different in any way ... yet I'm quite sure that were their fantasies to become common knowledge, those same people would be shocked and/or horrified. But it has to be made very clear here .. of all those "normals" that shared a penchant for Rape Fantasies, without exception not a one of them would EVER conscience or support actual rape. For them the two were distinctly clearly different, and they were quite able to pull out and describe the reasons and particulars to each that determined which category it belonged in. The key word is "Fantasy". It's a safety valve that lets us rationalize (and even enjoy) depictions of acts and simulated acts that would otherwise be abhorrent. Allow me an example: I recently watched the original Transformers movie again. During one of the giant battle scenes, the Autobots and Decepticons are literally tearing the downtown area of some big city to shreds. In the movie we see buildings shattered, destroyed, reduced to rubble ... and yet we are all sitting on the edges of our seats enjoying the back and forth of the battle between Good and Evil. And yet .. there was this tiny movie playing in my head ... replaying that horrific day when I watched the Twin Towers in New York City crumbling to the ground. Memories of the pain and disgust triggered by that event crept up to the edges of my enjoyment, but did not venture inside and "ruin" the movie for me. Why? Because the movie was Fantasy. I could hold up the "This is just make believe" shield and let my moral dilemma pass by without twisting me into tormented emotional agony. As adults, we (hopefully) have developed a good command of that perceptive skill that allows us to properly recognize that which is fantasy and that which is real. I know for a fact that I was physically ill on that day in September, watching the bodies of people plummet to the ground ... because I knew "this is for real". And yet I can watch a movie like Terminator or Alien and not even flinch as bloody carnage is portrayed on the screen. On the subject of Rape Fantasy ... it's not "my thing". But those I have known that do find pleasure and satisfaction in it, also hold tight to that same shield that protects the fantasy as just that ... Fantasy. I should also point out that in that community, those that are NOT able to keep the two separate are disenfranchised and ostracized by the group. And they do know the difference .. can spot it clearly .. because they are also mature enough and capable enough to know where that line between Fantasy and Reality is. Those that ignore the line or cannot discriminate between the two are unwelcome and will not ever find themselves "protected" ... because they are not amongst their peers in the slightest. Hannibal Lecter: First principles, Clarice. Simplicity. Read Marcus Aurelius. Of each particular thing ask: what is it in itself? What is its nature? What does he do, this man you seek? Clarice Starling: He kills women... Hannibal Lecter: No. That is incidental. What is the first and principal thing he does? What needs does he serve by killing? Clarice Starling: Anger, um, social acceptance, and, huh, sexual frustrations, sir... Hannibal Lecter: No! He covets. That is his nature. And how do we begin to covet, Clarice? Do we seek out things to covet? Make an effort to answer now. Clarice Starling: No. We just... Hannibal Lecter: No. We begin by coveting what we see every day. Don't you feel eyes moving over your body, Clarice? And don't your eyes seek out the things you want? 

Void Singer wrote: yes, and people go around dropping anvils on each other or trying to run across gaps between cliffs all the time... censorship doesn't prove anything other than what the censors don't like, period.... seems like you are the one being controlled by the media. not at all, we are all to some extent controlled by the media, its unavoidable, we are faced with a bombardment of situations each and every day. the censors are there to make sure we are not too influenced by what we see in the media. to assume censors are there just to cut stuff out that they dont like for the hell of it is a ridiculous assumption.

Void Singer wrote: Dogboat Taurog wrote: but you wouldnt have disneyland in adult land would you, unless you were stupid.[...] well I couldn't sink quite to your level, so my example is at least plausible. Dogboat Taurog wrote: this is a forum, its my right to express my opinion, you have no right to even try to tell me where my place is. I see, you have a right to make ridiculous demands, and everyone else has no rights to state basic facts? neither you nor I decide what is or is not allowable; only LL. don't like it? tough, because you're going to have to live with it. you seem to think this is about LL, it isnt. its about common sense and you. your examples are as plausible as mine, people dont open disneyland style places in Adult land because they think about its effects and side effects, something you should care to consider also. i rent on adult rated land and i live as an adult there. why should a child avatar wish to live as an adult? you dont make any sense. the watch word is appropriate not appropriation.

Ceka Cianci wrote: Dogboat Taurog wrote: Ceka Cianci wrote: actually V1s hog more resorces than V2's if you are speaking about the servers and sims.. if you are talking about computers..thats gonna change between users Phoenix runs faster than V2 on my machine. thats a fact. ive tried them all as i said before, and i have been in SL long enough to know what suits me. perhaps you dont know much about resources and frame rates. perhaps you didn't understand what i said..server side V2's are less of a hog..client side it becomes user to user.. your last line speaks volumes..it says..dogboats system is how we tell how frames work..that frames and resources are only affcted by usage and not settings.. what suits you does not define user to user.. it just shows your lack of knowing how this whole thing works.. i use both. i don't just try them.i think i know my system better than you do..mine gets better frames on a v2 than a memory leaking patched up v1 trying to run on v2 servers.. my v2 will run the same and use the same 5 hours from now..if i fire up a v1 then it is count down time to a crash depending on the viewer as the leaks suck down my resources..i find myself going into processes and clicking off slplugin.exe after slplugin.exe over and over because of my v1 trying to keep up.. that may not be the same for you..it's all in the settings and systems..not on some scale we all go by.. i dont think you understand what i said so i will explain in simpler terms; V1 runs better than V2 on my PC. ps im sure you know your system better than i do. same here.

Ceka Cianci wrote: Wow and people say the U.S. is uptight? LOL nipplegate? i dont think its such a bad idea to screen as little gratuitious violence as possible but the US have always come across as loud violent religious nutcases.

Ceka Cianci wrote: Are you talking about teenage mutant ninja turtles? when did they have their names changed? after the series was long passed over? it never changed where i lived..even the movies were teenage mutant ninja turtles hehehehe go ninja go ninja goninja go Upon TMNT's first arrival in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Poland, Austria, Germany, and some other countries in Europe, the name was changed to "Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles" (or TMHT, for short), since local censorship policies deemed the word ninja to have excessively violent connotations for a children's program (in Ireland, however, the first season aired as "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" before changing to "Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles").[35 ] Consequently, everything related to the Turtles had to be renamed before being released in these nations (comic books, video games, toys, etc.) The lyrics were also changed, such as changing "Splinter taught them to be ninja teens" to the "Splinter taught them to be fighting teens." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_Mutant_Ninja_Turtles

Marianne McCann wrote: Spotted you very briefly today in the SL8B Dazzle region (or was it SL8B Pizzazz, I confuse the two). Was gonna say hi, but you were gone before I got the chance to. Happy SL8B :-) would that have not been better as a message rather than a forum post?

Void Singer wrote: Dogboat Taurog wrote: but it would represent a start in the right direction, cant have brothels on mature land can you? no it wouldn't, you can have Disneyland on adult land if you want. A != B [...] can you seriously say its not a good idea to limit child avs to G rated land? yes, I can seriously say that, because as a land owner I can choose to define lower limits for whats allowed on my land, and choose to put that on adult land if I want to filter out accounts that can't access it. ps they can always change avs eh? they are not stuck in a childs body.. and you can always choose not to do business at places you object to. But so long as they don't violate law or TOS, it's not your place to say, nor mine, regardless how offended we are by it. but you wouldnt have disneyland in adult land would you, unless you were stupid. this is a forum, its my right to express my opinion, you have no right to even try to tell me where my place is.

Void Singer wrote: the only solid correlation that has been linked to RL behavior from various forms of media, is that people who already act on those behaviors are drawn to their virtual counterparts... not vice versa.... playing lemmings does not give people a desire to watch RL rodents pushed of a cliff, nor the desire to try to build bridges to save them. but people that already have those desires tend to be drawn to it, along with countless others as a competitive pass time. Claims to the contrary have never been shown to hold water, no matter how loudly they are yelled. and the fact that films and games are censored has nothing to to with copycat behaviour, you talk absolute rubbish Void. the cartoon program Mutant hero ninja turtles had its name changed to mutant hero fighting turtles and the word ninja was seen to be a trigger for violence. this is the power the media has and dont fool yourself that you are not controlled by it.

Ishtara Rothschild wrote: Dogboat Taurog wrote: i believe psychiatrists have found links to RL violence from video games. Psychiatrists have also found that this kind of thing can be cured with prefrontal lobotomies, electroshocks, insulin-induced coma, forced ice water baths a.k.a. arctic waterboarding, forced sterilization, involuntary drug trials sponsored by pharmaceutic companies, life-long imprisonment without a fair process, as well as forced restrainment and sedation whenever the torture victims complain about these horrible human rights violations. Like almost everything in the field of psychiatry, which is the ugly, stunted and feeble-minded stepchild of medical science, it is mere pseudo-science that has never been conclusively proven. I'm being a bit facetious here, but the fact is that there is lots of data to disprove the few make-believe studies with fabricated conclusions that right-wing conservatives and left-wing authoritarians like to wave around. If you google for "video games don't cause violence", you'll find a ton of studies and research papers that prove the exact opposite. But you only need to look at the statistics. Here are the key points: For several decades, the crime rates in the entire Western World have been on a continuous decline. Which means that while video game usage goes up, crime goes down. Out of millions of kids that play video games, only a very small percentage commit violent crimes. If video games really caused violence, you'd expect to see a percentage of 50% or more, not something more akin to 0.05%. There are vastly more juvenile delinquents who come from impoverished families that can't afford a computer or gaming console than criminal youths who spent their time playing video games. While the USA still has a relatively high crime rate, many Western European and Scandinavian countries have very little crime. Yet adolescents in these countries play just as many violent video games as their American counterparts. PS: Just recently, I read an article by a psychologist who stated that transsexual people who are born with the wrong gender were actually suffering from a delusion and needed psychiatric "treatment" rather than acceptance by society and the opportunity to live as their chosen gender. So much for psychiatrists and their opinions. its a very dangerous path to fantasise too much. I'm pretty sure there is a George Orwell quote about fantasizing and dreaming, but I can't be bothered to look it up. Personally, I think people can't use enough of their imagination. Almost all great ideas and discoveries started with "I have a dream", i.e. with people fantasizing about something. Of course these new ideas and inventions always led to societal changes, and despite the fact that most of these changes were for the better, conservatives never like change and try everything to resist it. Change endangers the status quo, which is always met with a resounding "no we can't" from the powers that be and the moral majority. For example, can you believe that back in the 18th century, many self-proclaimed experts warned that the novels of romantic writers such as Jean Paul might cause a "loss of reality and spiritual withdrawal into a romanticized dreamworld"? That's right, they tried to demonize books. Mass-printed fictional novels were a new medium at that time, and like every new medium it was thought to be the end of moral behavior and traditional values. Another dire concern was that female readers could get a bit too excited over romantic literature and might be driven to engage in unladylike behaviour. Just imagine that an unmarried young gentlewoman sneaking her hitherto innocent fingers into her undergarments while reading chick lit! The horror! Nowadays, people voice very similar moral concerns when it comes to video games and MMOs like Second Life. The reality loss and sexual deviancy arguments are usually among the first when small-minded people are desperately searching for reasons to resist progress. The violence argument is a more recent addition. Looking back, their concerns were always made up out of thin air and never justified. SL is probably slightly more dangerous in this respect. "Probably" does not cut it. Personally, I think that your typical SL addict is not very likely to do anything at all in RL, criminal or otherwise, seeing that he spends most of his time trying to escape reality SL residents might be the most quiet and non-violent people on this planet, no matter what kind of virtual activities they engage in. many films and video games have been blamed for various real world atrocities which is why they are censored. SL has no such censoring and no story line hence "SL is probably slightly more dangerous in this respect." i think we both know that paedophilia isnt a good thing, even if its just fantasy, and i'm afraid you scare me because you are so wierd. there is no telling what goes on in your mind when you decide to have a mythical character with a 12 inch "attachment". does your mother know about you? not trying to be nasty but could you tell her what you do and of this attachment? perhaps thats a sign that you have gone too far if you cant.

be prepared to be thought of as both a paedo and a child, its your choice.

Ceka Cianci wrote: actually V1s hog more resorces than V2's if you are speaking about the servers and sims.. if you are talking about computers..thats gonna change between users Phoenix runs faster than V2 on my machine. thats a fact. ive tried them all as i said before, and i have been in SL long enough to know what suits me. perhaps you dont know much about resources and frame rates.

Ishtara Rothschild wrote: Pussycat Catnap wrote: The difference is one of simple context. A movie like Schindler's List is not fantacising about subjecting such people to that experience. Its recalling it and shedding light on it - not indulging or glorifying it. Were I to put out a film advocating genocide or glamorizing it or even fantcizing about engaging in it - you can be sure I'd face a very hostile reaction, and possibly even legal action (in the US, limited to a civil suit. But in the EU and many other places, possible criminal sanctions). Are you saying that SL role players fantasize about acting out the same kind of behaviour in RL? I doubt that is always the case, even when there is a sexual element to a role play scenario. I for one have RP'ed a great many scenes in SL, as well as in other MMOs, that I wouldn't want to experience in reality. Like actors, role players often reenact something they read or heard about. RP can also be a way of coming to terms with one's fears and dislikes. And sometimes, role players simply want to be somebody else for a while, as different from their RL self as possible. A kind and gentle person might role play a villain, and a powerful businessman might RP a docile female submissive. That's not necessarily a fantasy or a deepfelt desire, it could simply act as a counterweight to their RL experience. PS: This reminds me of fantasy MMORPGs, where even the most peaceful people perform acts of mass murder. I doubt that any WoW player fantasizes about swinging a battle axe at a group of midgets. Or worse... I remember a dark elf quest in the original Everquest, where the player was given the task to stab a pregnant halfling woman. I don't think that any Everquest player has ever remotely considered to do something equally violent in RL. In the end, it is the same as shooting space invaders or using a slingshot to catapult birds into stone walls, and I can't believe that it affects the RL conduct of the role player. i believe psychiatrists have found links to RL violence from video games. its a very dangerous path to fantasise too much. stabbing a pregnant halfling women (whatever that is) may have been justified in the end in a MMORPG, but the same couldnt be said for a gratuitious killing in another setting, this is where the problems start. there are probably causal links to violent video games from RL and censors are required nowadays for most adult games. SL is probably slightly more dangerous in this respect.

Ayrea wrote: umad? nope, but i sure hate paedophiles.

Deltango Vale wrote: Doesn't anyone ever get bored of this topic? i guess some do and some dont.

Void Singer wrote: Dogboat Taurog wrote: of course its illegal but SL is the perfect place to make such movies, just because its illegal doesnt mean it couldnt or doesn't happen does it?[...] and nothing you suggested wouldn't stop that either, regardless of land rating, or account type... that can only be dealt with by reporting it and letting LL hand off the information to law enforcement, which I can assure you that they are more than happy to do. but it would represent a start in the right direction, cant have brothels on mature land can you? paedos will of course get around things just like the paedos in RL do but can you seriously say its not a good idea to limit child avs to G rated land? ps they can always change avs eh? they are not stuck in a childs body..

Ishtara Rothschild wrote: i cant change LLs opinion, this isnt the right place to do it, and i'm not seeking to. i am seeking to appeal to adult land owners to ban child avatars from their land for the right reasons. can you honestly see a problem with that? I can assure you that I rigorously ban child avatars from my sim. Because my sim features explicit sexual content, not merely because it is adult rated. So yes, I can see the (legal) problem with child avatars in sex-themed sims. But I personally have no problem with child avis hanging out at adult-rated infohubs where Linden Lab forbid sexual activities, or in any other adult area that doesn't contain anything sexual. ps. child avatars are not prohibited from places that feature sexual activities, they are just not allowed to partake of such activities. so from what i understand of the TOS is fine for a child avatar to "watch". not a nice thought eh? Child avatars are also forbidden to be in close proximity to sexual content. A child avi standing next to an occupied sex bed, or in the middle of a BDSM club, is as much of a banable offense as a child avatar involved in sexual ageplay. It is also against LL's policies to feature child avatars in a nude or otherwise sexualized manner, which might as well happen in moderate or general regions. Legislators are concerned with situational context, not with Linden Lab's land maturity ratings. That's why LL also judge based on context and don't outright ban child avis from adult land. As for watching: Sure, child avatars can cam across parcel and sim borders and see what's going on in sex-themed areas. But where is the harm in that, considering that those who are able to enter moderate and adult regions are, in fact, age-verified adults? The only legal concern is the depiction of child-like characters in a sexual situation or sex-themed environment. and imagine the movies that could be made quite legally? would you seriously condone that kind of behaviour? I assume you're talking about machinima? In that case, there are two possible situations: 1.) The machinima video features both sexual content and child avatars in the same scene, which is illegal in the USA as well as other countries. This is actually exactly what the ban of sexual ageplay is all about. The likeness of a child combined with anything sexual, in the same image or movie scene, is illegal. Nothing else regarding 3D renditions of children is legally prohibited and needs to be banned. 2.) The operator of a child avatar cams across a sim border and films adult looking avatars in a sexual situation. Seeing that this hypothetical child avatar has to be age-verified in order to cam into adult sims, and that the operator behind the avatar can access all kinds of pornography outside of SL, I don't see why this would be grounds for concern. In other words, those children aren't really children and don't need to be protected from adult content. Only Linden Lab need to protect themselves, namely from people who produce images or machinima that RL courts would judge to be virtual child porn. of course its illegal but SL is the perfect place to make such movies, just because its illegal doesnt mean it couldnt or doesn't happen does it? one would have to be extrememely naive to to think these things dont go on in SL because LL say they cant. ps im not sure about your definition of "proximity" i think "actively involved" is key here. i know children arent real children in SL (most of them anyway) and i know you probably dont have huge ears and blue hair nevertheless thats how you portray yourself and im sure its real enough to you at the time.

Void Singer wrote: Dogboat Taurog wrote: proof please. i know all about land ratings TY, but why should a child avatar be on adult rated land where anything goes? for what reason? what possible justification? i feel you are obfusticating the issue. read it for yourself, the fact is illegal activities have always been banned, whether specifically named or not. and apparently you don't know about land ratings otherwise you wouldn't have said that... anything does NOT go, only what the land owner allows, within the limits of the land rating, as long as it's within TOS, period.... whether anyone likes it or not. heavens know I'd love to see an end to dolcett, but it's legal PS for those that don't know what dolcett is, I don't suggest googling it, but if you do, very NSFW you know as well as i do about why the land is zoned as it is, land owners can't allow sex or explicit violence on G rated land can they? people rent adult rated land because they want the freedoms that go with it. i know about Land Ratings, perhaps you are the one who needs to research a little more and examine its implications. i agree with you about Dolcett btw.

Ishtara Rothschild wrote: Dogboat Taurog wrote: problem is you can't offer some kind of answer to my question, all you can do is offer sarcasm. why should child avatars be on Adult rated land? it would be easy enough for them to act and dress appropriately. I've stated Linden Lab's policy, which is not necessarily my own opinion. I think the Lab's rationale is that not all adult places host sexual content. There are residential areas built by people who have no interest in sexual role play, and whose sole reason to live on adult land is to make sure that they only interact with age-verified adults. Other places have an adult rating because they host violent but non-sexual content, and there is no reason whatsoever for Linden Lab to ban child avatars from violent (i.e. combat or horror related) activities. The only places that child avatars are prohibited from entering are those that feature sexual activities, and that is enough to satisfy US legislators. Why should LL restrict their customers more than they absolutely have to? surely depictions of children and violence are as bad as depictions of children and sex. i cant change LLs opinion, this isnt the right place to do it, and i'm not seeking to. i am seeking to appeal to adult land owners to ban child avatars from their land for the right reasons. can you honestly see a problem with that? ps. child avatars are not prohibited from places that feature sexual activities, they are just not allowed to partake of such activities. so from what i understand of the TOS is fine for a child avatar to "watch". not a nice thought eh? and imagine the movies that could be made quite legally? would you seriously condone that kind of behaviour?

Ishtara Rothschild wrote: Dogboat Taurog wrote: Ishtara Rothschild wrote: Dogboat Taurog wrote: do you think paedophiles are ok? i don't. if you don't, you should agree that child avatars have no place on adult rated land. PS: Do you think that eating cats is ok? If you don't, you have to agree that cats shouldn't be allowed to come anywhere near a kitchen or a dinner table. thats a stupid analogy and you know it. I know It almost rivals your own slippery slope argument in that regard. (For my argument to be as irrational as yours, I'd have to restate it with neko avatars, virtual kitchens and prim tables). problem is you can't offer some kind of answer to my question, all you can do is offer sarcasm. why should child avatars be on Adult rated land? it would be easy enough for them to act and dress appropriately.

Ishtara Rothschild wrote: Dogboat Taurog wrote: Ishtara Rothschild wrote: Dogboat Taurog wrote: and its being said again. there is no reason for child avatars to be in Adult land. That is for Linden Lab to decide, and they don't seem to share your opinion. You should try and contact them. I'm sure they'll be glad to hear your feedback on this matter. i have every right to state my opinion as you do, are you forgetting that this is a forum? do you think paedophiles are ok? i don't. if you don't, you should agree that child avatars have no place on adult rated land. You can state your opinion all day long for all I care, but the simple fact remains that the people who run this platform have a different opinion. If you want them to do it your way, you'll have to take this discussion to the Labsters. PS: Do you think that eating cats is ok? If you don't, you have to agree that cats shouldn't be allowed to come anywhere near a kitchen or a dinner table. thats a stupid analogy and you know it.

Ishtara Rothschild wrote: Dogboat Taurog wrote: and its being said again. there is no reason for child avatars to be in Adult land. That is for Linden Lab to decide, and they don't seem to share your opinion. You should try and contact them. I'm sure they'll be glad to hear your feedback on this matter. i have every right to state my opinion as you do, are you forgetting that this is a forum? do you think paedophiles are ok? i don't. if you don't, you should agree that child avatars have no place on adult rated land.

Ishtara Rothschild wrote: and its being said again. there is no reason for child avatars to be in Adult land.