Selene Gregoire
-
Posts
7,456 -
Joined
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Knowledge Base
Posts posted by Selene Gregoire
-
-
2 minutes ago, Amina Sopwith said:
Of course you still have the RIGHT to live, just as you have the RIGHT to live without the consequence of any violation of your human rights. The right has been violated, in some cases without the possibility of recompense, but it still exists intact as a principle.
Am I really the only one that sees the similarities between the two sentences?
-
We all have the right to live don't we? Let's say the answer to that is yes.
On one hand we have someone saying that the right to live can be taken away by the act of murder.
On the other hand we have someone saying that right can't be taken away because (even though you are now dead) you still have the right to live.
Both things are true.
Think about that.
-
40 minutes ago, Chic Aeon said:
so until now people needed to be making some fairly big bucks
No, it's always been a case of earnings over a certain amount established by the IRS which, in the past, had been anything over $600.00 USD. So if your earnings (money withdrawn from SL) for the fiscal year totaled $600.01, you must, by law, file a federal income tax return. I think the $600 was changed to a lower amount a few years ago. Or it may have been changed to the $600. I'd have to look it up again to be certain but the exact amount is beside the point.
The point is, by law, if you have an income over a certain amount for the fiscal year, you must file a federal income tax return and LL must send you a 1099 showing the income (and the amount) has been reported to the IRS. And that certain amount is relatively a low amount.
ETA: I should also mention that it is $600 per fiscal year from all sources of income, not just SL. LL is still required by law to send the 1099 on withdrawals over a certain amount per fiscal year.
-
1
-
-
*waves hand in air*
Oh! Oh! I know one!
Breathe!
*runs for cover*
Note I did not say "breathe clean air".
-
48 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:
to what you regard as your property
That is just it. I don't regard it as my property. I regard it as what it is, a space on the servers rented, directly or indirectly, from LL in which I should be able to feel safe. And if feeling safe means not allowing any access to anyone else, then that is what it means. As a renter, I do have certain rights granted to me by LL via the land tools LL has provided and the rules LL has set forth to govern the use of that space which are not quite the same rules as those that apply to mainland or Linden Homes.
ETA: Before I left for almost 5 years, I did rent on mainland and I've had First Land etc. The only thing I haven't ever had is a Linden Home and that isn't ever going to happen. Subletting is against LL's rules and that is the only way I'll ever have one now.
-
1
-
-
I am done with this bull*****,.
-
13 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:
Projecting real world rights onto virtual world spaces is role play. Feeling genuinely violated by an "intruder" in SL is being victimized one's own role play, in which we're encouraged by the whole virtual world "land" metaphor we've all bought into.
Thank you for telling me my real life rapes were nothing but role play. You insensitive grrrrrr......
-
39 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:
I am going to respectfully suggest that you are conflating two things: "property rights" with your inarguable right to be free of and safe
No, I'm not. I'm saying I have the right to be safe in a place I pay for according to the "white man's rules". That's not meant to be racist. We can either play things by the rules* or not but you can't have it both ways.
ETA: *rules of [white man's] society
Not intended to be racist. I'm trying to get you to see it from a different perspective.
-
52 minutes ago, KanryDrago said:
That would be an ideal solution that pleased both sides, however like you I cannot see it happening
Ditto.
-
12 minutes ago, AyelaNewLife said:
Sure, but you did agree to it when you started logging back into Second Life once more, just as you agreed to every other change to the ToS that was implemented during your break. I therefore assume that you read it, fully understood it, and wanted to be legally bound by the terms for Tilia-as-part-of-SL? And if so, then what has changed to make you no longer want to be legally bound by this contract?
I might be grouping you up with others unfairly here. If so, I apologise; but there have been a fair few people who have demanded an opt-out for a contract that they are currently bound to, simply because it was repackaged and relabelled. That's what I can't get my head around. If Tilia was an entirely new service that came with terms and obligations that we were not already bound to, then I fully understand and agree with where you're coming from - but it isn't, to the best of my knowledge at least.
No, I didn't. There was no ToS to agree to when I logged back in the first time after 5 years. Zip, zilch, nada.
-
1 minute ago, KanryDrago said:
devils advocate is the phrase you are looking for
Yes, thank you.
-
2 minutes ago, KanryDrago said:
Because Scylla wants to fly her plane and you are being mean by not letting her but thats not being entitled in the least
I want to fly my planes too but I don't want to invade other people's personal space to do it. I find ways around and if I collide. Oops. Now I have to do what everyone has to do and start again but I don't have to go all the way back home to do so. It's been that way for 16 years.
-
Btw, Scylla, I realize you don't actually believe every word you are saying. It's just that it is sometimes hard to tell when someone is deliberately taking the opposing side in a debate (forgot the term momentarily, it'll come... later today) just to be contrary and when they are not. So, please don't take anything I have said as personal or a personal attack on you. It wasn't meant that way. It's not always easy to keep a lid on the emotional turmoil such discussions can create. I know it shows through. It's not directed at you.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Scylla Rhiadra said:
I am doing no such thing, Selene. I have nowhere suggested that the government grants rights -- quite the contrary. My point is that RL rights are simply inapplicable to a virtual world precisely because it is virtual.
Why should virtual be any different than RL when it comes to where your rights end and mine begin?
-
Just now, KanryDrago said:
Precisely my point its only inalienable if a government can't take it from you
therefore my statement the only human right you have is the right to die as its the one thing they cant take away from you
Well we do have the right to breathe... so far... at least until they figure out a way to charge us for the oxygen and penalize us for the carbon emissions we breath out.
-
5 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:
It is precisely my point that "rights" have nothing to do with governments. They are inherent to us all as humans.
The problem is you are talking about inalienable human rights and conflating them with legal rights granted by governments. They are not the same thing.
-
3 minutes ago, AyelaNewLife said:
Why isn't it accurate? I'm honestly curious here.
Because you've already agreed to those terms, when they were part of the wider Second Life ToS (with the exception of the changes re: inactive balances). The sky didn't fall down, judgement day didn't arrive, you simply signed some terms for a service that you were not using and so didn't affect you at all. So why the outcry, now that someone has done a copy+paste job on the document and swapped the logo out?
Unless of course I'm wrong, and there are more concrete differences between Tilia-as-part-of-SL and Tilia-as-its-own-entity. But so far no one has been able to come up with an answer to this, so... yeah.
No I didn't agree to those terms when they were deployed. They were deployed during a time period of close to 5 years that I did not log in.
To be safe, a person should never sign a contract unless they have read it, fully understand it, and want to be legally bound to do what it says.
Never sign a contract without understanding and negotiating key terms, no matter what.
That is Business Contracts 101. You do not sign contracts you do not want to be legally bound to. I don't want to be bound to a service I will NOT use. It's that simple. If you can't wrap your brain around that concept, I can't help you.
-
3 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:
By that logic, those who are victims of human rights violations, genocide, etc. aren't really "victims," because their rights are unenforceable, or their government has decided that they don't have any?
We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one, Kanry.
You might want to rethink this as First Nations people did not have governments. We had leaders that weren't really leaders. All those words used to describe them like chief, are extremely inaccurate on top of being European concepts that had no meaning for First Nations.
-
Just now, Gadget Portal said:
Personal space violation:
Don't make me tell you to eff off like I used to do on SLU.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:
Then that is what you do, Selene. I'm not arguing that you shouldn't.
I'm not even arguing that someone who sets their orb to a 0 seconds warning merely because they are dogmatic about their "property ownership rights" should not have the ability to do so, or that someone who lures people onto their property with a welcoming land description only because they enjoy watching chased off by hornets should not have that ability either. I think I would argue, though, that such people are probably pretty unpleasant.
I'm not one of them yet I get lumped in with them all the time simply because I need a space to feel safe in where others can't go.
You know the real reason I quit SL for almost 5 years?
The people.
They haven't gotten better. If anything, they've gotten worse.
I'm here for the love of building, not the people, since I am unacceptable, as I am, to most.
-
I do exactly what my pistol training instructor (ex army sergeant) taught us to do. Whatever it takes. And if that means not allowing anyone access to my personal space then that is what it takes.
As for the words being used, just what words exactly should we be using?
-
1 hour ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:
And now you no longer have to!
I've known that since they added it to the official thread. I was also the first one to bring their illegal coercion to their attention in that thread.
-
1
-
-
Apparently I don't have any right to even a minute feeling of safety in SL. I should get busy cancelling all of my accounts since LL can't/won't provide any means of being safe because we don't "own" anything in SL.
-
7 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:
What I've said has nothing to do with whether or not you are Premium, Selene. Neither am I. Neither is Kanry, with whom I am also discussing this.
You are completely missing what I am saying.
Do you think I want strange men dropping into my sky box UNINVITED with a huge *****ing movie cmaera on thier shoulder while running an obvious humping animation after I have been repeatedly raped in real life? That happened just the other day. And it was not the first time some guy I've never met or seen before dropped into my skybox with the security ON. AND i DID PANIC TRYING TO GET TO THE SYSTEM TO EJECT/BAN THEM.
Stop trying to take away what little feeling of safety I have left.
NOt saying you personally, Syclla.
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Security Orb Creators and Owners
in General Discussion Forum
Posted
Precisely. It intensifies, it does not negate. And if you care to dig a little deeper you might see what I see. If not....
I might still respect you in the morning. Maybe. I'll think about it.