What’s the Harm?
by onder on 24/08/07 at 3:20 pm
by Onder Skall
This story began when I was directed to an essay over at the SLLU blog entitled "What’s The Harm?". Basically it was a review of Second Life’s more hardcore sexual enterprises and a little walk down "Hard Alley", with the general message being that real harm was coming from it all. I wasn’t sure about the research and, not being a feminist, couldn’t really relate. I’ve always been a big supporter of people getting their kink on any way they damn well feel like, after all.
Still, I did think this picture was pretty funny – f you click on the ball you become chained to the post in a rather vulnerable position.
So I figured, what the hell, let’s talk to the person who wrote it. Whether I agree with someone or not, passion is something worthy of respect. In that way the author of the essay, Ledoof Constantineau, fits the bill. She’s worked with abused women and children for 12 years and has built a massive gallery of screencaps from inside Second Life. Maybe she’s seen something I haven’t.
After a bit of trouble (which I’ll cover in a bit) we visited the site that Ledoof created in the skies above Surrendered Scorpion. We were inside an enclosed area with screenshots on all sides from Second Life. Some were of search screens, some of domination scenarios playing themselves out, and some showed various bits of sexually violent artwork displayed in SL’s darker playgrounds [and Not Safe For Work - the Editrix].
The effect, at least from an artistic point of view, was impressive. We were enclosed on all sides by this material. On the ceiling there was actual text from message boards discussingwomen in ways not fit to print anywhere. Yeah, I realize this is theHerald, but even so.
There seemed to be volumes of it.
I’ve seen this all before, or stuff just like it, but having it all in one place and in every direction brought a new effect. It mattered now. It became really difficult to maintain my distance. I mean, I’m all for people expressing themselves any way they want as long as nobody is being victimized, but there was something about coming face to face with this much… what’s the word… disrespect. Even that word, "disrespect", meant something new now.
A walk through the wall revealed an exterior covered with more material from around the Internet. There were dozens of links to sexual journals and help for abuse victims. The build is a valuable resource, and one you should definitely track down. There’s a peaceful sitting area just off to the side if your group wants to gather and chat about these issues.
This was supposed to be a dispassionate article. What I had planned on doing, even leading right up to the point where I clicked the "New Post" button, was to just present the build and offer you the SLurl. Of course, the next thing I knew I was referring to myself… to my experience, to my perception, to what I was thinking and feeling. It became a blog entry really, and I apologize for that as I know you deserve better even if you don’t always expect it.
It happened for a reason, though: this is a story about passion more than it is about harm or abuse. Partially it’s about Ledoof’s passion, which is commendable, but it’s more than that. Most media let’s you drift past it, not obliging you to think or feel anything. This makes you think. It demands it. You might not be convinced of anything, but you will feel something here, even if you don’t understand what it is or what it means.
It was passion that made the build possible, but it was also passion that almost killed it. I had mentioned earlier that there was some trouble getting to see the build. The fact is that the sim owner wasn’t sure that they wanted too many people knowing it was there. It wasn’t prejudice or politics but something much worse: fear. They thought that if word got out, griefers would come and crash the whole place.
It wasn’t an unreasonable fear, either. Anybody who gives a damn about anything seems to be targeted these days. If you care, it doesn’t matter what about, chances are a few dozen people are going to jump down your throat about it. In the current climate of Second Life and the surrounding blogosphere it takes courage to make any kind of strong statement.
So there it is. Check it out, and if you have the guts, think about what you see while you’re there instead of doing what you have to do to brush it all off. I’m not saying that I’ve been convinced of anything, nor am I saying that "people are getting hurt". What I am saying is that Ledoof has a point, and it’s a good thing that at least one person is still willing to express an opinion about something despite how dangerous our "open-minded" culture has made it to do so.
Benjamin Duranske
Aug 24th, 2007
IMO, this is one of the best posts in the Herald since I started reading it. I’d heard about this exhibit and visited with the intent of running something on obscenity laws, but dumped the article after visiting. I originally thought, like the author of this piece, “Oh, come on… just leave the people alone and let them do their thing,” but the walls and walls of this stuff there really do make you think.
It’s a pretty provoking exhibition and this post manages to capture what happens when you walk into it. Well done. This goes in the same slot as the torture-porn that passes for “thrillers” in the box office (e.g. Hostel) now. I certainly don’t think it should be censored by any government, but I do think that individual people should have the self respect to find some less repulsive and demeaning source of entertainment. Sadly, a significant portion of the market speaks in favor of this stuff right now. Exhibits like this help put it in perspective.
Ali
Aug 24th, 2007
That’s a realy great article,Onder.Nice work.Haven’t visited the place yet,but definetly will.Thanks for posting it:).
CW
Aug 24th, 2007
Clearly there’s too much freedom here, we need LESS freedom and MORE authoritarian control over these virtual pixels that aren’t real. Won’t someone please think of the pixilated and fictitious children? Oh wait.
First they went after the ageplayers and got them off the grid. Then the gamblers. Now going after the violent/rape/bdsm/NC folks. Then furries. Then whatever else. Gradually, one by one, anything slightly risky or edgy or unsettling or dangerous is removed, banned, walled off, restricted and cancelled. gg.
Eventually you get what good, decent, God-fearing Americans want in a virtual world: an exact copy of the suburbs where you can go to your choice of chain stores in the mall and get marketed to by spending L$ on virtual versions of real world goods. The fact that you have your CHOICE of chain stores in the giant virtual mall that is Second Life means you are still free.
Jessica Holyoke
Aug 24th, 2007
Ledoof, great job on the build and the article at SLLU. I’m glad to see what you accomplished
Onder, great article.
This article isn’t about “its dirty so it should be banned.” Its about what becomes of our expectations in our lives based on what we see or do. The standard Prokofy argument is that if you are a Gorean Master in SL, you may want to do that with your RL. And there are Gorean Master’s in RL who have kajirae. The problem is causation. Some, but not all, SL Gorean Masters become RL Gorean Masters. And because there were Gorean Masters in RL before the internet, it takes away from the argument that roleplaying being a Gorean Master causes someone to be a Gorean Master in RL.
Looking at child predators and other paraphilias, some say that the incidences of predators are higher than the past. And that could be because of the availability of the information on the perpetrators due to the internet, (they are more easily found) or that the internet brings the participants together and amplifies the urges (the fantasy is in their head, but it would not have taken a greater hold, and someone would not act on it, but for the support of others.) Just something to consider when you look at Sex in SL. The fantasies already existed.
And again, maybe you wouldn’t put a woman on a spit in order to cook her in RL. But there’s an argument that says if you fantasize about putting a woman on a spit, you might be more willing to hit your girlfriend.
What’s also interesting is that in light of other articles in the Herald this week, how much of an effect on Gender relations exists because men play as SL females? For instance, how many kajirae are actually men on the other side, fueling other men’s sexual fantasies about women? (Sorry to pick on Gor, but the analogy works on other female submissive stereotypes.)
I wouldn’t want to see any of the things mentioned by Ledoof banned because of potential causation of real life harm. I believe that you have to educate regarding the wide gap between consenting fantasy and victimization of women. That gender violence and exploitation is real and both men and women need to work together to bring it to an end.
Rock Ramona
Aug 24th, 2007
blah blah blah blah blah….this isnt art,its trash,its degrading to women and degrades the soul of all who practice it.the only people who will visit this are atheists and people who simply dont care.this crap doesnt represent the majority of Second Life residents,only the small amount of freaks that stand up and scream,and the herald runs in the name of news.the only news here is that Second Life is the new Sodom and Gomorah,,,,and where are we going to be when God decides to pass judgement…and please notice that i am not afraid to post with my name…May God Bless you all
stigma
Aug 24th, 2007
Benjamin Duranske,
“I do think that individual people should have the self respect to find some less repulsive and demeaning source of entertainment.”
I would say instead that individual people should have more respect for the world, rather than the “self”. Individuals continue to have a human-centric egotistical view of the world, often claiming that a God (or more than one) created it for them, and human judgments are supreme especially with respect to morals, meaning, respect and the like.
What’s the difference between an image of that woman with a wooden post through her body, and one with a pig with a post through its body? The difference is that a typical “self-respecting individual” would look at the human and think “repulsive”, but would look at the pig and think “dinner”.
Are you a vegetarian, too?
The reason you and most people (so it seems anyway) think of something as “demeaning” is because it “dehumanizes”, ie, challenges your concept of “humanity”, puts the species back on to the same level as the rest of the world, reminds you that as a human are not great, you are not special, you are no different from the animals that you slaughter, the universe was not created just for you and is not yours to lord over. We’re all a random speck at a randomly located spot in an inconceivably endless universe, but in order to preserve the ego, sanctities must be created for ourselves and anything contrary called “dehumanizing”.
Once these “self-respecting individuals” you talk about shut down the non-human (animal) enslavement and torture centers and associated fast food centers and marketplaces that enjoy the product of human cruelty, once these “self-respecting individuals” stop manufacturing poisons to kill and maim those non-humans (colloquially “pesticides”), once they stop injecting them with diseases and experiment on their expendable lives -all in order to make HUMANS’ lives better-
only then will the concept of “repulsive” and “demeaning” themselves have any true meaning other than one filled with selfish hypocrisy and sanctimony.
Other than that ridiculous definition of self repect etc, your comment is pretty reasonable (overall).
The only problem I would have with any of the depictions in such a montage are any produced without consent of all involved. Otherwise, I find them neither repulsive nor demeaning — at least until those words actually mean something, such that a picture of, say, a hamburger would evoke the same emotion, knowing what it too represents (in that case, ACTUAL -rather than simulated- human cruelty).
Charlotte Barnes
Aug 24th, 2007
and what is your god’s SL name anyway?? I want to send him/her an IM.
Whatever
Aug 24th, 2007
OMG! A story about SL sex on the Herald! Amazing!
*yawn*
Sn4x15
Aug 24th, 2007
“First they went after the ageplayers and got them off the grid. Then the gamblers. Now going after the violent/rape/bdsm/NC folks. Then furries.”
And that’s a bad thing?
greta garbo
Aug 24th, 2007
“Second Life is the new Sodom and Gomorah,,,,and where are we going to be when God decides to pass judgement”
wow just wow
i dont know where you are gonna be but i hope im having mfm relations with sex dwarves eating hohos while i wear my feather boa What a way to go
DaveOner
Aug 24th, 2007
I would say I look at this from an “immersive educational” standpoint. I’m not one for blanket censorship of certain “taboos” like Germany does with the Holocaust and Nazism.
I’m also not one to censor these types of things. They’re there because its a part of what we are as a people. If we have the proper perspective (and the stomach) to see these things and understand what they mean for us as individuals as well as a community then we can learn from them and understand some of the dynamics we take for granted in society.
Just covering it up and pretending it’s not there only lets things fester and cause bigger problems.
I would have to say this was one of the better SLH articles I’ve read. Who’d have thought they could come with an informative and thoughtful article about sex?
Plot Tracer
Aug 24th, 2007
Excellent, Onder. a really important article. This article has opened a lot of debate in SLLU and in SL. Well done to Ledoof!
das_fuhrer
Aug 24th, 2007
To put in a griefer’s word, i’m FOR taking down sick sexual fetishes.
“First they went after the ageplayers and got them off the grid. Then the gamblers. Now going after the violent/rape/bdsm/NC folks. Then furries.”
Yiff in hell furfag
Dire Allen
Aug 24th, 2007
I lol’d
Maklin Deckard
Aug 24th, 2007
“and where are we going to be when God decides to pass judgement…and please notice that i am not afraid to post with my name…May God Bless you all” – Rock Ramona
What will I be doing, as a recovering christian? Doing exactly what I am doing now…which is avoiding the extremists that indulge in that kind of porn AND avoiding the equally extremist religious who spend their time passing judgement based on their own self-limited view of the world.
As far as god passing judgement, nothing is going to be judged by god since god is merely a fictional construct that is used an emotional crutch to those that cannot accept responsibility in their life (aka, trade having their live run by their parents for life run by their sky-parent, rather than accept individual responsibility to their behavior) and those who use it for their own personal gain (aka, monetary, political power, power over others, etc.). The only ones that will be passing judgement on this are HUMANS….humans trying to add extra validity to their opposition by invoking deity and declaring they win the arguement because god backs them, rather than stating well-thought out ethical, sociological or psychological reasons for their opposition. Deus Ex Machina.
‘I don’t like it ’cause god don’t like it’ is NOT an intellectually valid arguement! when dealing with any issues that affect others beyond oneself. Why not? Well first off, who’s god? Chistianist? Islamicist? Hindu? The extinct gods of the faiths of antiquity? And which faction in the faith of choice? You do realize there is even disagreement between main line factions of various faiths and their fundametalist followers as to what is acceptable to god? Religion is NOT a unified experience, even among the believers of the same faith, and is therefore not a reliable basis for supporting for supporting or opposing anything OTHERS do (However, if you wish to irrationally self-limit your own life, it is quite acceptable to hold yourself to religious standards, since it only affects YOU).
As far as the ‘blessing’, no thanks. I don’t need the ‘blessing’ of a fictional construct who’s followers cannot even agree on what their own deity believes and who use their faith to justify repression of all that they do not like. Give me an ethical or sociologically based arguement with FACTS, not beliefs.
As far as the article and the gallery, I (for the first time) find myself agreeing with DaveOner…
Maklin, recovering christian.
Rock Ramona
Aug 25th, 2007
Well Macklin,sorry to hear you are having a tussle with God,ive had the same thing happen to me,woke up one am,went to work,was in a horrible accident,was paralyzed for a month,had to have my spine replced wuth a stainless steel one…lost my business,almost lodt my wife and family,,,,,,had a teensy weensy time where i was pissed off at God,the world,why me,waa waa waa,but it was with Gods help and others with strong faith praying for me that brought me from my pity party and darknessback to where i am today,so im sometime and we can talk,in the meantime,im going to put your name on my prayer list and begin praying for you as soon as i finish this post,hope to hear from you soon,your friend Rock
Corona
Aug 25th, 2007
Re ‘The only problem I would have with any of the depictions in such a montage are any produced without consent of all involved.’
not sure if it is in the exhibition mentioned – but there is one image I know of in SL where consent is very unlikely to have been given – a RL image of a murdered woman – which while not used for sexual fantasy propogation and might be humourous from an anti-religious viewpoint – from a feminist veiwpoint it is not funny at all
no worse perhaps than the sort of thing that might be shown in ‘bizarre’ magazine
but using an image of a real RL murdered woman for humour ?
she was somebody real and her RL relatives (at the least) should be shown consideration
however as for
To put in a griefer’s word, I’m FOR taking down sick sexual fetishes.
who is the sadder – the fantasist or the narrow Mary whitehouse minded like plot tracer
who devote their time to creating greifing scripts to stop others having consensual fun
‘Yiff in HELL furfag’ yeh right -just shows that plot tracer is just another christian bigot fighting satan
I can see nothing in the feminist agneda or any tolerant reasonable one that would find fault with others being furries – if you dont want to fine – no one is forcing you – and while i dont have any urge or desire for being a furry avatar – that is no reson to attack it
I would imagine that plot tracer is homophobic too – usaully a sign of sexual insecurity
Victorria Paine
Aug 25th, 2007
It’s an important exhibition. It’s very important for people to understand how easily things can get rather out of hand, and people can become so far removed from treating other human beings with dignity and respect. It’s an important reminder and a well done project.
I’m not in favour of censoring people’s activities — that’s too hamfisted for me. I am certainly in favour, however, of educating people about how to reconcile their fantasies and desires with basic principles of respect for others, human decency, and ethics.
When I am taking on a new submissive who wishes to serve me, for example, I always stress the importance of respect and dignity in all aspects of the relationship, including the respect for limits and so forth. To me, that’s a critical part of being a human being, regardless of your deepest fantasies and desires, and is therefore a priori to any of them in a deeply fundamental sense. For me this goes without saying, but I feel it is important to dwell on it with others because often they have not heard it, and they have no framework within which to think about these things.
Much of what is needed in SL is better education. What you have is a lot of people coming into SL with their unfulfilled fantasies and then fulfilling them (or trying to) in an environment that provides the freedom to explore but often doesn’t provide a good infrastructure of education for the explorers … as a result, things can get really out of kilter, really fast, for some people who simply don’t have that infrastructure that they need. This is one of the main reasons why I support educational efforts in the BDSM community, for example, for the newcomers, the seekers, the explorers, so that they can get a grounding of how to do this without becoming a predator, or abandoning their sense of human dignity, self-worth and respect for others. More people need more of a talking to, and more learning, than they do “quick and easy” experiences like SL offers … and those of us who *do* know better are the ones who are in a position to help steer people, to help channel them so that they can live their fantasies in a way that is affirming, sane, and filled with respect.
das_fuhrer
Aug 25th, 2007
At least im not a sick fuck, practicing my sick fuckery on the internet.
Your ‘consensual fun’ is putrid, disqusting, gross, abhorrent, and a disgrace to the human species as a whole
Yiff in hell furfag.
BK
Aug 25th, 2007
Wow ! Thank you Macklin for an absolutely BRILLIANT post wich I 100 % agree to. And thank you Rock for proving his point.
Candy Lemmon
Aug 25th, 2007
I went to the build, and maybe I’m made of stone, but I didn’t have even a taste of the change of heart that Onder describes. It’s a wonderful thing to support a woman who helps abused women and children, but the truth is the women in those SL screenshots have volunteered to be there.
We all know how sex balls work, there is no forcing someone into one – the avatars click and choose to be “victims” and “dis-respected”.
Two consenting adults have the right to engage in whatever deviation turns them on. Call me a casualty of our permissive and dangerously open-minded culture, I’m making myself a medal that says so.
Tenshi Vielle
Aug 25th, 2007
Wow. Just utterly, totally, WOW. I think I’ll opt for gentle, kind sex tonight.
Maria Leveaux
Aug 25th, 2007
Long ago, Hustler magazine’s publisher Larry Flynt Published a photo that had appeared on the front page ove many daily newpapers, and in almost all the major News magazines in the United States. it was a Viet nam Era Photo of a Woman who had been caught in an Air raid (They were never too clear on who’s bombs did the honors) The Woman was laying naked in a Ditch, completely naked because the blast had blown her Clothing off, she was perhaps 20 She was on her back, legs spread wide, arms flung out over her head. She would have been quite attractive had her Abdomen not been blow open by the force of the Blast. The caption beneath this photo in hustler explained that this womans image had been on the pages of the morning papers across the US, and reprinted in Greytones in the magazine, and in bold print at the end of the short Caption were the words “The sick thing is, If this woman were whole, and healthy, this photo would be considered Obscene”.
I’ve seen Women on the net Engaging in acts of Sexual Torture, and brutality before. Some actresses with make-Up, Some not, but these women All had a choice. For love, or money, or personal fetish, they CHOSE, but None of what i have seen of them on the net will EVER come close to the Effect that the Image of that poor Viet Namese Country girl had on me. That was As Real as it was truely Obscene and it was served up to the American people in the morning with their coffe, and in the evenings while they Ate a Good Rare steak. That woman had no choice in having her Dignity so Stripped from her.
In Iraq, a short time ago a squad of US Marines led by a depraved lunatic Murdered a 16 year old girls family in front of her, then Raped the Girl and Cut her throat Then they blamed it all on “Insurgents”. That girl had no choice in the terror that was Visited on her and her family.
If you are really concerned with obscenity, then do something about The Real Thing. Make sure images, and stories like those never again appear on the 6:o’clock News. If you do that you will Really be accomplishing something.
As for me, after seeing and hearing about those Real Depravities, i don’t think i’ll ever be shocked by what people do for recreation again.
Maria.
Ian Betteridge
Aug 26th, 2007
There’s lots of problems with the arguments in the SLLU blog post, mainly because it takes the standard anti-sex feminist/leftist tack that “pornography oppresses women”. To quote from the Feminists Against Censorship web site (http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/), “The equation is simple: Those who have power get to censor, and those who lack power get silenced. If you find yourself in a position to demand and get censorship, you can be sure you are among those who have the power, and you are acting to oppress others.”
The first thing that SLLU does is conflate consensual sexual acts amongst adults (and “adult” sized avatars) with paedophilia. This, of course, is nonsense: paedophilia is, by definition, non-consensual and therefore by virtually anyone’s standards immoral and to be condemned. The aim is clear: get more censorship under the guise of “protecting the children”.
It’s full of “anecdotal evidence… police are concerned… someone suggests that… it seems…” and very light on facts – probably because there’s no actual research to back up what are, basically, political points.
To answer the post’s question, “Who are we keeping SL free for? ” – it’s simple. Free for individuals to make their own choices, right or wrong, and not to have their choices made for them by the nanny state, socialist or otherwise.
Chav Paderborn
Aug 26th, 2007
What people seem to miss here is that free speech does in fact include the right to ask other people to be quiet. They don’t have to listen, but protesting against something *is* free speech. That’s the whole reason we have it enshrined in legal codes, after all.
After that we’re into people disagreeing about whether fantasy impacts on reality. I think it does to some degreee, even if it’s “just” desensitising us. After all these months in SL, am I in some ways desensitised to seeing a woman on a chain acting out some glorified version of slavery? Does seeing people act out violent relationships make me more or less aware of the damage such would cause in RL? I’m not sure yet, and I haven’t managed to decide what I’d like to see done about any of this. Mostly I want there to be a free environment for people to say “Hold on, this makes me uncomfortable and here are my reasons.” Screaming “OH NOES, CENSARSHIPP!” and going all Godwin’s Law isn’t helping anyone on any side of the debate.
Ledoof is I think more anti-porn than I am, but I agree with her that fantasy and reality aren’t completely separate realms. One affects the other, unless we’re aware and we’re careful. If SL can support so much porn I think it can support one well-constructed protest against that porn. That being what free speech is all about, after all.
Second Lulz Vigilante
Aug 26th, 2007
@stigma
“The only problem I would have with any of the depictions in such a montage are any produced without consent of all involved. Otherwise, I find them neither repulsive nor demeaning — at least until those words actually mean something, such that a picture of, say, a hamburger would evoke the same emotion, knowing what it too represents (in that case, ACTUAL -rather than simulated- human cruelty).”
Oh peachy. Now the PETArds have shown up. Yeah, like sexual torture of a human being is the same thing as killing livestock. Here’s a little science for you, stigma:
1) Predators such as wolves and tigers have a small gut which helps them efficiently digest meat protein.
2) Herbivores such as cows and horses have a long gut to efficiently digest vegetable matter.
3) Omnivores such as us humans have a medium length gut. Why is this? It’s so we can digest BOTH animal and vegetable matter.
I’m probably wasting my time on you with this brief science lesson though. I’m going to shut up now and do what I always do everytime I hear a PETArd wangst about animals: eat a nice thick t-bone steak. :p
PEDOBEAR
Aug 26th, 2007
paedophilia is, by definition, non-consensual and therefore by virtually anyone’s standards immoral and to be condemned.
WRONG. FAIL. PEDOPHILES WANT TO HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH CHILDREN.
I THINK THE FBI NEEDS TO INVESTIGATE YOUR COMPUTER LOL.
Rock Ramona
Aug 26th, 2007
For a Sunday afternoon project,my wife and I walked around town,the local campgrounds,and knocked on several selected doors of local Doctors,Teachers,and several local artists with copies of pictures from this alleged art display and asked for everyones opinion.We asked a total of 343 people out of a town population of 3300.Not one of those people considered this art,and they immedieately asked if this sick person lived in our community.I assured them that they didnt,but still they pressured me to tell them where i got this gatbage,i was ashamed to tell them it was from a community that i have resided in for almost 3 years.I finally told them it was from an internet online community and they then laughed saying thank God it wasnt from around here……and as i walked home from the last house i visited…i reassured myself that there were good people still on Second Life,a place ive spent so much time..and tonite as i write this,i find myself very sad,judging myself as to why im really still coming to sl
Hexx Triskaidekaphobia
Aug 27th, 2007
Rock Ramona:
> and tonite as i write this,i find myself very sad,judging myself as to why
> im really still coming to sl
Sounds like a serious case of addiction. You might want to consider seeking professional help, and maybe even an excorcist.
corona
Aug 27th, 2007
Re the comment by das fuhrer
“At least im not a sick fuck, practicing my sick fuckery on the internet.
Your ‘consensual fun’ is putrid, disqusting, gross, abhorrent, and a disgrace to the human species as a whole
Yiff in hell furfag.”
bigotry and blind intolerance are also a disgrace to humanity
corona
Aug 27th, 2007
to pedobear
how does the pedophile wanting sex with children make it consensual ?
corona
Aug 27th, 2007
to second lulz vigilante
I thought we were dicussing a matter of morality and ethics not a scientific one
just becasue animals eat other animals it does not neccesarily mean we should
some species of animals rape and many defectate in public – are you advocating those things as well ?
corona
Aug 27th, 2007
To Jessica Holyoak
If SL is so terrible in your veiw – why do you even go there to visit ?
and ‘God coming to judge us’ ???
as God does not exist this seems highly unlikley
Jessica Holyoke
Aug 27th, 2007
corona,
The author tags come after the comment not before. It looks like you were responding to Rock Romona’s comment, not mine. (especially since I didn’t mention God in my response).
corona
Aug 27th, 2007
and another thing – why do people persist in calling paedophiles pedophiles
Pedo – foot
Paedo – child
phil – love
therefore a ‘pedophile’ is correctly speaking a lover of feet
the proper term for a child molester whether latent or practicing is ‘paedophile’
here endeth the lesson
Second Lulz Vigilante
Aug 27th, 2007
@corona
“I thought we were dicussing a matter of morality and ethics not a scientific one”
PETArds want us all to go vegan and will stoop to propaganda to achieve this even though nature naturally selected humans to be omnivores. I find this propaganda to be disingenuous, dececeitful, immoral, and unethical.
“just becasue animals eat other animals it does not neccesarily mean we should”
True. But our species being designed as omnivores means nature obviously didn’t give a damn about vegan “morality”. The laws of nature can’t be argued with. Take a look at any religious fanatic to see what I’m talking about.
“just becasue animals eat other animals it does not neccesarily mean we should”
What a lovely strawman you’ve constructed. I’ll entertain it anyway though.
Nature also selected us to be able to invent things…such as toilets. Nature also selected us to be capable of abstract reasoning and complex social systems which punish rape.
But nature never created us to be purely herbivorous or carnivorous. To tilt one way or the other because vegan thinks it’s cruel is to use the same kind of logic that pronounced “You can’t tell people the Earth is round and orbits the Sun, you wicked astronomers! That’s immoral and unethical!”
Rock Ramona
Aug 27th, 2007
Dear Mr Hexx,im not addicted,just have friends here from 3 years of being here that are wonderful people,,and im not Catholic,and so no need of an Exorcist,only spirits in me are good ones:),,,,but by the way you put your reply,perhaps you should be digging around yer own soul for some bad spirits…Love Rock:)
Hexx Triskaidekaphobia
Aug 28th, 2007
Thank you so much for sharing, Rock. But shall we try to stay on topic? Oh, btw, it’s Ms. Hexx – hth, hand.
corona
Aug 28th, 2007
nature also selected us to be able to choose our diet
I think you are slightly missing the point of Peta – probably deliberately
Peta is for the ethical treatment of animals – this does not neccesarily preclude meat eating – only that the animals are treated decently while alive, and that their death is also as ethical as it is possible to make such
true in an ideal world we would all choose to be vegan
but an ideal world would be a lot of other things that the natural world is not
but if you really want meat- there is always plenty of fresh road kill available – if you get there quick enough
and it is not so much that meat is murder as a matter of meat being suicide – certainly giving some of the chemical additives in meat – - but that is even further removed from a dicussion of the social ethics of pornography in SL than your disaggreement with PETA
what was it Swift said – they argue over whether the field is round or square rather than the heart of the matter in hand
Second Lulz Vigilante
Aug 28th, 2007
“nature also selected us to be able to choose our diet”
To a degree. There are consequences to those choices. Eat nothing but cookies and drink nothing but Red Bull all the time like a WoW poopsocker is very unhealthy. Nutritionists warn us to eat a balanced diet. This includes meat and dairy. I think I’ll trust them more some crackpot from PETA.
“I think you are slightly missing the point of Peta – probably deliberately”
I don’t think so. They actually kill more animals than they save: http://www.petakillsanimals.com/
“true in an ideal world we would all choose to be vegan”
lol wut?
“but if you really want meat- there is always plenty of fresh road kill available – if you get there quick enough”
If you want vegetables and berries, those also grow wild. Based on your train of thought we both need to stay away from the grocery store.
“certainly giving some of the chemical additives in meat”
I worked in a grocery store once. Do you know that they add a chemical to bananas to make them ripen more quickly? They also add lots of pesticides to other vegetables.
“but that is even further removed from a dicussion of the social ethics of pornography in SL than your disaggreement with PETA”
No it isn’t. The person I originally commented to compared killing animals for food to killing humans to satisfy some depraved lust. It kind of reminds me of the time PETA put up that infamous billboard comparing the killing of chickens for food to the Holocaust under Nazi Germany. In doing so, PETA has forever Godwined itself in the minds of many people.
Pince
Aug 28th, 2007
Second Lulz Vigilante, great point about omnivores and good science lesson. To add to that: human stomachs are also capable of metabolizing human meat (quite nutritious, I understand) and human tastebuds are capable of sending positive feedback in response to its taste (yummy). I wonder then if science argues an equivalent point for humans as the one you’ve made for animals.
Entropy Nikolaidis
Aug 29th, 2007
Hexx Triskaidekaphobia
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Stop being a joiner.
PETA has nothing to do with “Ethics”. Here’s what PETA says:
“There is no hidden agenda. If anybody wonders about — what’s this with all these reforms — you can hear us clearly. Our goal is total animal liberation. [emphasis added]”
— “Animal Rights 2002” convention, Jun 2002
Total animal Liberation??
PETA’s goal is the “total liberation of animals” – a world where we don’t eat them, use them for medical research, keep them as pets, display them at zoos. No more horse back riding either. Bet all you pet owners that shell out money to donate to PETA feel a little silly when they figure that one out. Do you realize what happens without medical animal research? PETA has repeatedly attacked groups like the March of Dimes, the Pediatric AIDS Foundation, and the American Cancer Society, for conducting animal testing to find cures for birth defects and life-threatening diseases. When asked if she would oppose an experiment on five thousand rats if it would result in a cure for AIDS, Newkirk responded: “Would you be opposed to experiments on your daughter if you knew it would save fifty million people?” In addition to opposing any and all medical research that uses animals, PETA also insults medical professionals by arguing, with a straight face, that animal testing is a counterproductive means of finding cures for human diseases. WITHOUT ANIMAL RESEARCH WE HAVE NO MEDICAL SCIENCE. For real, educate yourself.
PETA is run by Ingrid Newkirk. She is totally loony. Don’t take my word for it, take hers:
“Eating meat is primitive, barbaric, and arrogant.”
— Washington City Paper, Dec 1985
“There’s no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They’re all animals.”
— Washingtonian magazine, Aug 1986
“One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals. [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild … they would have full lives, not wasting at home for someone to come home in the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV.”
— The Chicago Daily Herald, Mar 1990
“Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation.”
— Harper’s, Aug 1988
“Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we’d be against it.”
— PETA president and co-founder Ingrid Newkirk, in the September 1989 issue of Vogue, Sep 1989
“I am not a morose person, but I would rather not be here. I don’t have any reverence for life, only for the entities themselves. I would rather see a blank space where I am. This will sound like fruitcake stuff again but at least I wouldn’t be harming anything.”
— The Washington Post, Nov 1983
“Our nonviolent tactics are not as effective. We ask nicely for years and get nothing. Someone makes a threat, and it works.”
— Ingrid Newkirk, in the April 8, 2002 issue of US News & World Report , Apr 2002
“Perhaps the mere idea of receiving a nasty missive will allow animal researchers to empathize with their victims for the first time in their lousy careers. I find it small wonder that the laboratories aren’t all burning to the ground. If I had more guts, I’d light a match.”
— The Chronicle of Higher Education, Nov 1999
“true in an ideal world we would all choose to be vegan”
Are you so confident in your PERSONAL ideals to feel they should be applied to the rest of the world?
“and it is not so much that meat is murder as a matter of meat being suicide – certainly giving some of the chemical additives in meat ”
Spoken like someone who has done little to no actual research into food saftey. I’m not going to do your homework for you. If you choose to be afraid of progress and technology, there’s really nothing else to be said. Food in the United States is regulated, and the current rate of food saftey is HIGHER THEN IT HAS EVER BEEN IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND.
A small number of us on this planet have so much food around that we can choose to turn down certin kinds of foods for our own personal reasons, that’s fine. You have the problem of too much food.
However, when you try to force those PERSONAL standards onto a world that is experiencing massive hunger and starvation in areas, that’s just insane. Like when Greenpeace convinced the government of Zimbabwei that tons of donated genetically modified corn were “poision”. 1.1 million people starved from that incident. Dude, these people got dirt, they got sun, they got water: what they lack is the MODERN technological equipment needed to till the earth, and the hybrid plants that produce MORE food per plant. Unless you or your loved ones are starving to death or dedicatied to fighting the problem, you really need to shut up.
Second Lulz Vigilante
Aug 29th, 2007
@Pince
“I wonder then if science argues an equivalent point for humans as the one you’ve made for animals.”
Well an animal will do what nature has assigned it to do unless humans intervene. This means that some animals will kill and even eat humans. Frex, if I go swimming and encounter a school of pirahnas I can probably kiss my ass goodbye. Does this make the pirahnas evil? Nope. Nature has dictated to them that I am a nutritious snack. lol!
Pince
Aug 29th, 2007
Second Lulz Vigilante, exactly the point. Any pro-omnivore argument that can be made for an animal can likewise be made for a human. So by the logic, likewise, human-human murder, rape, deceit, torture, etc are equally rational. Any difference between species is purely based on ego/morality.
An average human thumb and index finger, when joined by each respective finger of the other hand, and made form an open circular shape with maximum circumference is about the size of the average neck based circumference of a human of the same age. Looks like nature selected us to strangle each other (then metabolize each others’ meat).
To all you pro animal-torture, animal-murder people: if some day humankind creates synthetic substances (much like today vitamins/pills/etc) that provided equivalent nutrient and taste of animal meat, would you still go around hailing how wonderful it is to be able to slaughter animals to eat?
One thing to remember is that humans (or ancestors) were not always omnivores, and not always carnivores, and not always herbivores, and not always either. Evolution by definition doesn’t end. Humans may one day no longer have any reason to torture animals to death, except for fun. In other words, humans could evolve to lose their carnivorous biological nature as they find other ways to provide equivalent bodily supplements. If either disease is eradicated or computational models are able to predict biomolecular outcomes sufficiently such that experimentation is no longer necessary, they could also lose the need to experiment on non humans. To simply say that at this point in time it may be in our “nature” to do it doesn’t mean it should be done. Perhaps it’s necessary to evolve to a better point in human history. Who knows. It may also have been necessary to build societies based on brutality, slavery, etc, at the dawn of human history in order to eventually have the capability of constructing societies based on less brutal and fairer societies in existence today. Who knows. But to argue that a particular means is evident or that it’s naturally possible today misses the point.
“WITHOUT ANIMAL RESEARCH WE HAVE NO MEDICAL SCIENCE”
Entropy Nikolaidis, I have yet to witness a single anti animal-torture animal-murder person ever dispute that. It is a bit disappointing though that humans are apparently too dumb to understand biochemistry, biophysics, and everything in between that their only recourse to torture animals to death, often to produce a result they don’t even know how to explain, but just “works”. Now then, one must ask: if one wishes to produce a medicine for humans, why doesn’t one experiment on the most logically appropriate, accurate, and useful model available on earth, the best candidate organism for the job: the human body? Six billion of them. No shortage there. Oh, right, the answer is because humans are “better” than that. Humans have “ethics”. Ah and where do those “ethics” come from…? The ego, and the morality of the day.
I’m guessing you wouldn’t volunteer your family and friends to be experimented on to make my life better and my friends’ and families’ lives better, which is too bad because I would have hoped you’d have more compassion for your species. Tsk tsk.
Maybe we can experiment on your own pets then? Family dog? Wait a minute now, why is a rat ok to torture to death but not the family dog? Not cute enough? Doesn’t obey the slavemaster’s commands so readily? Not on the same level of “worth” as living beings, I suppose (reminiscent of when historically and even still today, human races regarded those of other races the same way). I’ll neglect the glaringly obvious fact that it’s about human ego/morality/ethics much like I’ll neglect the fact that some cultures eat dogs for food while others dine alongside rats, who they see as reborn ancestors — all as proof of the truth of justifications you make. The issue has never been a question about how much human progress could be made by the unquestionable torturing of animals to death.
And you have the audacity to call someone not wanting another living animal to live its entire life from birth in a reinforced concrete/steel cage (with fake, painted scenery on the walls) a looney? That’s absolutely outrageous.
Actually if anything all those quotes the antithesis of looney. Just as an example, even Second Lulz Vigilante who loves t-bone steak has proven this one, in not so many words:
“There’s no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They’re all animals.”
Second Lulz Vigilante
Aug 29th, 2007
@Pince
“So by the logic, likewise, human-human murder, rape, deceit, torture, etc are equally rational.”
No, they aren’t. Such things are choices and not biologically engrained like omnivorism is. Animal instincts are biologically engrained and are therefore not moral choices on the part of the animal.
“Looks like nature selected us to strangle each other (then metabolize each others’ meat).”
Opposable thumbs were designed for tool use. Our hands are actually LESS effective weapons than claws and fangs. And you’re a dumbass if you honestly think that humans can safely eat other humans. You must never have heard of a prion disease called Kuru that resulted from human cannibalism in Papua New Guinea??
“Humans have “ethics”. Ah and where do those “ethics” come from…? The ego, and the morality of the day.”
Basically your saying that morality doesn’t exist and is totally subjective while at the same time trying to argue the morality of using animals as food or research subjects. I’d venture that this PETard thinking comes just as much from ego as you claim other moral belief systems do. Typical PETArd doublethink.
“if some day humankind creates synthetic substances (much like today vitamins/pills/etc) that provided equivalent nutrient and taste of animal meat, would you still go around hailing how wonderful it is to be able to slaughter animals to eat?”
Which we haven’t done yet. You are asking us to cross a bridge that we have yet to cross, if ever. And even if we can make such a sci-fi miracle pill, what makes you so damn sure we’ll even be able to produce enough of it to feed 6 billion people? Even with eating animals and plants large swaths os the human world already go hungry. Maybe you’d be whistling a different tune if you lived in Ethopia, frex?
“Evolution by definition doesn’t end. Humans may one day no longer have any reason to torture animals to death, except for fun. In other words, humans could evolve to lose their carnivorous biological nature as they find other ways to provide equivalent bodily supplements.”
Once again, we haven’t done this yet.
“if one wishes to produce a medicine for humans, why doesn’t one experiment on the most logically appropriate, accurate, and useful model available on earth, the best candidate organism for the job: the human body?”
Actually, we do that toward the end stages of a drugs development with the consent of the people involved(at least in reasonably democratic societies).
““There’s no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They’re all animals.”
No, I didn’t say that at all. I said humans do what is in their natures which…is to make choices. Some of those choices are illogical sure(such as vegetarianism lol!). An animal does what is in it’s nature…which is to act on instinct unless interfered with by humans(and interfering with other plant and animal species is in our nature btw).
Look, you’re trying to argue morality from a nihilistic and relativistic point of view. But that’s not going to work because a true nihilist wouldn’t actually care about animal rights the same as they don’t care about the human rights concept of humanists or the God-given rights concept theists or the animal rights concept of PETA. Personally, I think you PETArds just secretly want to fuck chickens instead of eat them. lol!
LOL
Aug 31st, 2007
To add to the on topic discussion… No, what happens in SL indeed won’t hurt anyone. Except maybe those that cannot see the difference between reality and fantasy… they might be a problem yes. But, they belong in a mental institution to begin with.
Great ‘art’ display tho, it makes people think and that’s the important thing.
Now to stray completely off topic:
For the non-meat eating crowd:
DID YOU KNOW that recently it was scientifically proven that plants can feel stress?
Can’t hurt the animals cause it’s cruel, can’t hurt the plants cause it’s cruel.
What’re you gonna eat now?
(PS: I’m all for letting animals have a good comfy life before we eat them… But I’m still gonna eat them. But PETA isn’t about that really, is it? Not AT ALL judging what PETA does to get in the news and draw attention to Teh Evil Meateaters. While killing animals “To save them”.)
Second Lulz Vigilante
Aug 31st, 2007
@LOL
Strangely enough, PETArds always swallow after giving a blowjob from what I’ve heard.
No dairy. No eggs. But they’ll down a mouthful of baby batter faster than a bowl of tofu.
The Grid Live
Sep 4th, 2007
Second Life News for August 25,2007
There.com vs. Second Life Of all of the emerging Internet media that are discussed in the tech press, social virtual worlds have made one of the more notable splashes in the past year. Second Life has been alternately celebrated and slammed. There was …
Plot Tracer
Sep 15th, 2007
Corona- please do yourself a favour and check exactly who says what before you start a diatribe. I take offense at all u say about me, but then as a rl socialist revolutionary, materialist, athiest and teacher, I have been called worse… please be sure to attack me on what I say and do and not on the words or actions of others… thanks!
plot tracer
Sep 15th, 2007
ian betteridge- please when reading articles on our group blog remember they are the views of individual members and do not reflect the views of the entire SLLU. For example, the current article on Laura Gagliano, Krisp Alexandre and Luna Box cannot be seen to reflect my views as the interviewer nor the views of the group. -or example, I disagree with my comrade about Chavez… but SLLU is about what unites leftists not about what we disagree on. Articles on the blog are discussion pieces for members and the sl and rl community at large. http://slleftunity.blogspot.com/