Linden Lab is building a NEW virtual world

[Phil Deakins]

---

Thomas Galbreus wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

 You do understand the difference between being influential and actually protecting, don't you?

---

No.

Then you'd better stop arguing the point until you've learned the difference. You just shot yourself in the foot

 

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

You are there on the street with the murderer in front of you and pointing a gun at you.

---

In that situation the protection of the law by deterrence did fail. I already said no law can prevent

any

crime unless in Minority Report.

All you need to do now is extend your 'logic' and see that no law can actually prevent any crime, and no law can protect anyone from any crime. You're getting there, but you need to keep working on it

---

 

[Thomas Galbreus]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

 no law can actually prevent any crime

---

True, but that has not been disputed anywhere in this thread.

[Phil Deakins]

From what I read in this discussion, before I chipped in, that's exactly what you were disagreeing with. Perrie said that no law can protect anyone, and you disagreed. If no law can prevent a crime, how come you think a law can actually protect people? You're not making sense.

And you failed to answer my question, which were:-

I also wrote in the post you quoted from, "Example: murder is against the law, but that law does not stop murder from happening." so tell me something. If a law against murder actually protects people, why are murders still committed? Why is it possible for them to be committed?

Do feel free to answer it at your leisure

[Monalisa Robbiani]

If just one single person in history was not being murdered, because the perpetrator was being deterred by the punishment and decided not to do it, the sentence

"the law doesn't protect anyone from anything"

is false.

What's going on here? That's simple logic.

Determent is one of the core purposes of punishment. The others being justice and retribution, enforcement of authority, rehabilition, protection of the public from the criminals and so on.

[Thomas Galbreus]

Thank you Monalisa.

Perhaps some confusion resulted from the term "any" being ambiguous in the English language. Sometimes it means "every", sometimes it means "whichever".

So when I agreed that law does not prevent any crime, I of course meant that law does not prevent every crime.

[Celestiall Nightfire]

---

Thomas Galbreus wrote:

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

 When referring to a Master/Mistress slave relation ship it is always M/s. the Master/ Mistress always is referenced first.

---

My goodness, your ego is so fragile that you must not only seek a submissive woman, but you have a crisis if her letter is not smaller than and after yours. LOL.

---

Drake is merely citing what he and some others do.  There's no one or right way to write those words.  I don't use upper and lower case for denoting dominant or submissive, nor do I care if others do. 

 

But, you're way off base with the ridicule here.   People involved as BDSM practitioners are actually emotionally healthier than those who are described as "vanilla".

 

http://www.livescience.com/34832-bdsm-healthy-psychology.html

 

 

 

 

 (Edited for typo)

[Celestiall Nightfire]

---

Thomas Galbreus wrote:

Being voluntarily submissive can also be seen as a form of self destruction.

---

Nonsense.  I double dog dare you to find a way that my submissive nature is a form of "self destruction". 

On the contrary, as an Alpha female, my submissive nature only happens when I find that rarest of men....the true Alpha male.  It's one of the most deliciously freeing experiences....and expands my mind....as I'm channeling my inner self.  I end up stronger, bolstered with a euphoric endorphin rush that is quite remarkable.   I think if more women, (and men!) could experience that feeling, we'd have less depression, and less illness, (as immune systems are compromised with depression) and certainly a happier society.

 

When I am experiencing the Yang to my Yin...I grow in strentgh and value.  *smiles*

 

---

Thomas Galbreus wrote:

 If someone leads a whole life like that, I can't consider it sane.

---

The rest of your comment isn't relevant.  As anything could be not sane if done to excess.

 

[Celestiall Nightfire]

---

Thomas Galbreus wrote:

gobbledygook

---

Hey Thomas, I read quite a few of your comments in this thread, and you've posted some muddled thoughts.

1)  Porn is a normal healthy part of real life.   Humans have been creating porn for thousands of years, as is demonstrated through the many ancient ruins, preserved ancient societies (Pomeii and the Kama Sutra are good examples), and world-wide phenomena.   The fact that we have porn and adult content in SL means that we have normal healthy people here who are sexual beings.   That's part of life!   Since SL reflects RL, it's a quite healthy and if we didn't have porn and sexual expression here, we have a false projection of humanity.

2) BDSM is also a normal healthy expression of human sexuality.  

3)  *Women who are "submissive" aren't demeaning themselves, nor is a person who is a "dominant", someone who feels insecure and/or needs to lord their power over others.  (You had indicated this in an earlier comment you made)

4)  A virtual world without adult content would be very dull indeed, just as real life without sex and adult interactions would be very dull.

 

5)  I think if SL followed your advice, it would shrink on the vine and die.  

 

6)  You sure read a lot like Fraulein Jo.  (You're against adult content, say you have no *TV, claim to be ashamed to mention SL to people, lobbying for no porn, etc)   But, you say you're a man...mmmm?

 

 

*BTW, I also have no TV, and haven't had one in over ten years.  ; )

 

[Snugs McMasters]

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

People involved with BDSM practitioners are actually emotionally

healthier

than those who are described as "vanilla".

http://www.livescience.com/34832-bdsm-healthy-psychology.html

 

 

---

From the survey... "BDSM practitioners either did not differ from the general population or if they differed, they always differed in the more favorable direction".

Maddy will not be happy to hear this. She's as oppositional as they come. If she can't be different, she's unhappy. And if she can be different, "favorable" is not the direction she chooses.

I can't complain. She's steady employment. Perhaps she's got no habenula?

[Celestiall Nightfire]

---

Snugs McMasters wrote:

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

People involved with BDSM practitioners are actually emotionally

healthier

than those who are described as "vanilla".

http://www.livescience.com/34832-bdsm-healthy-psychology.html

 

 

---

From the survey... "

BDSM practitioners either did not differ from the general population or if they differed, they always differed in the more favorable direction".

Maddy will not be happy to hear this. She's as oppositional as they come. If she can't be different, she's unhappy. And if she can be different, "favorable" is not the direction she chooses.

I can't complain. She's steady employment. Perhaps she's got no habenula?

---

Laughing out loud here!   ; )

 

 

I'm sure Maddy has a *habenula...

*it's output is a vital neurotransmitter! ...and if it shrinks one can have depression and memory loss..yikes!   

[Madelaine McMasters]

I'm agreed.

As a nefarious alpha female, I'm going get where I want to go. But, I don't like confrontation. So, rather than bulldoze, I tunnel. My endorphin rush comes from being with someone who's happy to toss me the keys to her Cat and let me run amok.

My goal is the same as anyone in a healthy relationship, to please my partner. But I must be allowed to believe I'm driving. It's deliriously fun to be with someone who enjoys that conceit. I may be at the controls, but my partner provides the power.

[Tari Landar]

---

Thomas Galbreus wrote:

I guess US citizens can be more relaxed about it only because the US law seems to have no problem with an age "verification" that consits of simply clicking a button that sais "I am at least 18 years old".

---

German law apparently doesn't either, if you're in sl at all. Because that's the verification for sl too, and has been for years.

[Thomas Galbreus]

I did not mean it in the sense of psychological health problems, but see it as  a character problem. I don't doubt for a minute that even outright evil people, even  murderers, can be healthy and happy.

If someone has the character distortion of finding pleasure in supressing a woman, of course he feels splendid if he finds a victim. And concerning the victim who also feels good about being one: "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe)

The text you linked includes the statement: "These roles showed some links to psychological health, such that dominants tended to score highest in all quarters, submissives lowest and switches in the middle." That supports my thesis that letting someone enslave you is not the wisest of ideas.

One commentator pointed out: "They did the study by filling out questionaires. On questionaires, it is often those who lie best about themselves who look best. They were not actually studied by psychologists."

[Thomas Galbreus]

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

---

 Humans have been creating porn for thousands of years

---

I pointed out several times that I am not against any form of porn, only against porn that I consider an assault on human dignity, like misogynic porn - which sadly is the majority of porn. Concerning that, should it also be painted on some cave wall: Humans have been assaulting human dignity in any imaginable form for thousands of years. Long practise does not mean legitimation.

 

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

---

A virtual world without adult content would be very dull

---

I consider virtual imitations of erotic activity very dull compared to the real thing. It's not what I'm after in a virtual world at all.

 

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

---

You sure read a lot like Fraulein Jo. (You're against adult content, say you have no *TV, claim to be ashamed to mention SL to people, lobbying for no porn, etc) But, you say you're a man...mmmm?

---

You mean I would be an alt of Jo Yardley? I think she is interesting, so I see it as a compliment. Sadly my English is not as fluent as hers, so if you still think I'm her, it is another compliment. Jo lobbied for no porn? Do you have a link?

 

[Thomas Galbreus]

---

Tari Landar wrote:

---

Thomas Galbreus wrote:

I guess US citizens can be more relaxed about it only because the US law seems to have no problem with an age "verification" that consits of simply clicking a button that sais "I am at least 18 years old".

---

German law apparently doesn't either, if you're in sl at all. Because that's the verification for sl too, and has been for years.

---

Wrong. SL would not be allowed to run on German servers. You won't find a porn site running on German servers without a rigid age verification system.

 

 

[Thomas Galbreus]

By the way, Jo Yardley is one of the poeple who work hard in communicating to the outside world that SL has interesting things to offer that don't comform with the cliché, and I salute her for that. So in that sense she is not "ashamed to mention SL to people".

I tried to do that in the past, but not as committed, and gave up because it didn't seem to help the raised eyebrows.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Thomas Galbreus wrote:

Thank you Monalisa.

Perhaps some confusion resulted from the term "any" being ambiguous in the English language. Sometimes it means "every", sometimes it means "whichever".

So when I agreed that law does not prevent any crime, I of course meant that law does not prevent every crime.

---

Having an ally doesn't help your case

The word 'any' may have several uses but in the sentence you wrote, 'law does not prevent any crime', it means that the law cannot prevent a single crime from happening; i.e. it means 'every'.

The law does not have a physical presence and is, therefore, powerless to stop or prevent anything from happening. The original statement that you disagreed with and started this discussion was that, 'The law does not protect anyone from anything'. Physical things can protect people from crime. Things like walls, people, dogs, guns, etc. can protect people, but words on paper cannot.

And you're still avoiding answering my questions. Only someone who knows they have no answer and, therefore, they are wrong, would need to avoid answering. But just in case you've managed to accidentally not notice them twice, I'll write them in bold this time...

You're on the street. A killer is right in front of you with a gun pointed at you, and he intends to murder you. How can the law protect you from him? What can the law do to prevent him from killing you?

I do hope that you'll have the guts to answer those question for this third time of asking. If you conclude that the law is powerless to prevent your murder, as you are forced to do, then you are compelled to agree that you've been wrong, and that the law cannot protect anyone from anything.

[kiramanell]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Excuse me for butting in here, but I want to say that Perrie is correct. What Perrie said is that "

no laws protect anyone from anything

", and that's what you didn't agree with. But Perrie was right.

Laws cannot stop things from happening. Example: murder is against the law, but that law does not stop murder from happening. The law against murder can certainly make people think twice (at least) before committing a murder, and it can be said that some people are alive now because other people decided not to risk spending a very long time in jail, but that law did not

protect

anyone from being murdered. It was influential in some people not being murdered, but that's all.

If someone decides to risk jail and murder someone, the fact of the law's existance 

cannot

protect the victim from being murdered, or prevent it from happening. It's as simple as that. 

 

---

Excuse me for butting in here, but I want to say you are entirely correct. No law can ever prevent harm from comig to you. At best ppl can say: "Here's a law we made. It's supposed to dissuade peeps from killing you." That's all. And they can put some more blue on the street, to deter bad folks even more, but the law never shields you from the ill-will of others.

At best, the law offers remedies to injuried parties. Like copyright infringement, Laymen will say the law protects your works; but it doesn't. All the law does is offer remedies for when ppl steal your work. But the law can no more prevent ppl from stealing your work than it can ensure that you won't get murdered. At the most, the law can dissuade.

[Phil Deakins]

Exactly.

[kiramanell]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

The law does not have a physical presence and is, therefore, powerless to stop or prevent anything from happening. The original statement that you disagreed with and started this discussion was that, '

The law does not protect anyone from anything'

. Physical things can protect people from crime. Things like walls, people, dogs, guns, etc. can protect people, but words on paper cannot..

---

 

Seems Thomas is unable to grasp the distinction between 'Law' and 'Law Enforcement.' The latter is there to ''Protect & Serve' -- but even that is, at most, a 'best effort' deal. And anyone who's ever lived in Detroit will know that *wanting* to protect ppl from getting murdered, and actually being able to, are two vastly different things.

Besides, Perrie's original statement, 'The law does not protect anyone from anything,' was in made in the context of Thomas erroneously thinking that mere better age-verification laws would prevent ppl from lying about their age. To which Perrie, entirely correctly, argued that no law will prevent ppl from doing so, if they really want to.

[Drake1 Nightfire]

You could make it purple underlined and 20 feet tall, wont matter Phil. He only reads what he wants to read. He ignores any statement that he doesn't agree with and cant easily put down with his brand of logic.

[Phil Deakins]

I have no doubt that you are right, Drake. The way I think this will end is that he'll realise that he's wrong and, rather than post that he was wrong, he'll just drop out of it without saying anything. It may not happen immediately, but it might.

By his silence (his refusal to answer the same questions - twice), he's effectively admitted that he's wrong, but he doesn't want to be seen to be wrong, so he continues as though the questions weren't asked. I'm curious to see how he handles the same questions now that I've asked them again in bold type. Maybe he'll take the opportunity to bow out silently - with his tail between his legs, of course lol.

[Phil Deakins]

---

kiramanell wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

The law does not have a physical presence and is, therefore, powerless to stop or prevent anything from happening. The original statement that you disagreed with and started this discussion was that, '

The law does not protect anyone from anything'

. Physical things can protect people from crime. Things like walls, people, dogs, guns, etc. can protect people, but words on paper cannot..

---

 

Seems Thomas is unable to grasp the distinction between 'Law' and 'Law Enforcement.' The latter is there to ''Protect & Serve' -- but even that is, at most, a 'best effort' deal. And anyone who's ever lived in Detroit will know that *wanting* to protect ppl from getting murdered, and actually being able to, are two vastly different things.

Besides, Perrie's original statement, '

The law does not protect anyone from anything,'

was in made in the context of Thomas erroneously thinking that mere better age-verification laws would prevent ppl from lying about their age. To which Perrie, entirely correctly, argued that no law will prevent ppl from doing so, if they really want to.

---

Maybe that's it, kira. I think he's german, so he may not understand all the meanings of all the sentences we write. Although, in one post I did refer to the law as words on paper, so I'm inclined to think that he's not confusing the Law with Law Enforement.

[Thomas Galbreus]

This is becoming stupid.

Law is usually enforced, so that is of course part of the equasion. I clearly mentioned law enforcement before.

"thinking that mere better age-verification laws would prevent ppl from lying about their age."

No, lying wouldn't help then, because it would actually get verified.

Allegation I didn't answer the question blahblah. I did by saying that in such situation (robber in the street) the protection failed, which can happen because of course law (including it's enforcement) does not prevent EVERY crime = ALL crimes. Is EVERY also ambiguous in English??

[Drake1 Nightfire]

---

Thomas Galbreus wrote:

This is becoming stupid.

Law is usually enforced, so that is of course part of the equasion. I clearly mentioned law enforcement before.

"thinking that mere better age-verification laws would prevent ppl from lying about their age."

No, lying wouldn't help then, because it would actually get

verified

.

Allegation I didn't answer the question blahblah. I did by saying that in such situation (robber in the street) the protection failed, which can happen because of course law (including it's enforcement) does not prevent EVERY crime = ALL crimes. Is EVERY also ambiguous in English??

---

key word being "usually"