A Message from Roz Wei and Roz the departed

[rey]

my favorite part of this thread is people using homosexual as a negative adjective

[Aksel]

Why is this thread continuing - lets just post gifs of funny things that represent the life of rozalia. 

[Sir Scarfalot]

43 minutes ago, rey said:

my favorite part of this thread is people using homosexual as a negative adjective

When it comes to childish attempts at making people uncomfortable, male homosexual images are disproportionately used purely in order to try and increase the potential discomfort of the victim(s). That's a thing. It doesn't mean homosexuality or homosexual imagery is in any actual way negative, just that immature children use homophobia (almost certainly their own) to try to cause extra discomfort.

Edited April 30, 2018 by Sir Scarfalot

[Kurdanak]

30 minutes ago, Mad Max said:

Why is this thread continuing - lets just post gifs of funny things that represent the life of rozalia. 

Edited April 30, 2018 by Kurdanak

[Aksel]

8 minutes ago, Kurdanak said:

The fact that you found the most accurate, spot on gif - makes me want to marry you.

[Buorhann]

2 hours ago, Mad Max said:

Why is this thread continuing - lets just post gifs of funny things that represent the life of rozalia. 

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GNAM_enUS687US687&biw=1920&bih=974&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=88TmWrskjJiPA572gegC&q=rozalia&oq=rozalia&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l10.9268.10009.0.10232.7.7.0.0.0.0.157.572.2j3.5.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..2.5.570...0i67k1.0.nenX5L-5iKM

[Aksel]

1 minute ago, Buorhann said:

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GNAM_enUS687US687&biw=1920&bih=974&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=88TmWrskjJiPA572gegC&q=rozalia&oq=rozalia&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l10.9268.10009.0.10232.7.7.0.0.0.0.157.572.2j3.5.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..2.5.570...0i67k1.0.nenX5L-5iKM

That ain't no gif

[Buorhann]

18 minutes ago, Mad Max said:

That ain't no gif

Just add gif in the search bar, there you go.

[Novarus]

Paperless forever!

[Auctor]

Paperless is for noobs, try accountless when you get your sea legs.

[DragonK]

On 4/29/2018 at 7:01 PM, Big Brother said:

I'm not sure anything is harmful by itself. For something to be harmful, it has to interact with something that is harmed. Regardless, you do know that movies and video games do have age restrictions? They might not be enforced by the law but they do exist and they exist for a reason. It can be harmful for children to be exposed to what we call adult content in general.

You saying that it's tame and benign (lol) is really nothing but your personal opinion, which many people don't agree with and you haven't exactly proved that your personal opinion is any more valid than anyone else's. Just because you're ethically cool with teenagers (aka children) watching pornography doesn't mean that it's suddenly okay for children to do that, and holding that opinion doesn't hold any worth or validity by itself, it doesn't prove anything conclusively. Nor does the lack of preventative measures against children being exposed to things that can potentially be harmful to them mean that people shouldn't try to take such measures in the present/future. It certainly doesn't mean that sharing adult content with children shouldn't be condemned as wrong. You're basically saying that because kids are looking at porn anyway, sending them more porn isn't really a big deal. But that's just apathy, it just means quitting and giving up. If more parents thought like you do, I would be seriously concerned about how kids are gonna end up in the future.

Except there is a legal definition of children, as I showed you earlier. Minor = children. I don't see what's so difficult to understand about that. If you find using the word children or kids to be misleading, that's an individual problem of yours that I can only assume is a result of either your denial of simple facts or perhaps your failure to understand the things I've shown you. If your age is below the age of majority (which is usually either 18 or 21 and which "legally demarcates childhood from adulthood"), you are a minor and thus a child. It really isn't any more complicated than that. You can disagree with using minor and child interchangeably all you want but it would basically be the equivalent of denying the existence of gravity. Your disagreement doesn't change the truth and in this case it only ends up making yourself appear dishonest. Now, considering how easy it is for you to deny the facts, what's to stop you from doing the same should any proof be discovered? I get the feeling that you're more interested in sticking to your guns and convincing yourself that you're right than you are in actually learning the truth of things. Even if I could somehow figure out the identities and ages of every single person who received the links, there'd be no point to providing any proof if you're going to be unwilling to accept it as true. You are right about there being no proof though, so while I still consider it to be fairly likely that at least one minor received the links, I won't judge someone for an act that hasn't been proved to have taken place. I still believe sending the links to anyone to begin with was wrong and completely worthy of the ban. It was also kind of tame, I honestly expected something edgier and more megalomaniacal.

Meh.

Drinking too much water can be harmufull. You don't see them banning water.  As far as I'm aware there is no PROVEN corelation between it and any harmfull effect. Using same excuse you could ban video games cause "they make you violent". Just becasuse something is legal or illegal, allowed or not allowed, it shouldn't be taken for granted. You should always question yourself,  and the world around you.  But ethicality or morality is hardly the issue or the matter here, but just wanted to make sure even that is on shaky legs.

It's my personal opinion based on observable facts. Which makes it more valid than the one based purely on someone's ideals of belifs. Just casue it's not perfect doesn't mean it's not better. It not having any relatively bad effect, free availablity of it as well make it less of a big issue. And that is if some of the recipents of the message were children, which there were none last time I checked.

Legal definition is major and minor. Children are not a legal term, and are more social, everyday term. Thus it's misleading, since the targeted word was minor and not children, which are similar but not sinonimus, since one can refer to pre teens only as well as all teens and even majors (just becasue you're and adult and a legal person does not unmake you from being someone's child) and thus my point still stands.

As far as my opinion goes, I know it myself the best, and I know I've changed my opinion a lot based on new relevant evidence. This might be me favouring one side here, but it's mostly to defend as equally absurd opposition trying to defame and demonize him. So yeah, using cheap tricks against opponents doing the same is not beyond me, but just casue they're cheap doesn't mean they are not correct.

Glad we both agree it's a tame but banable offense. I'm merley trying to stop people who are trying to make a big deal out of it. I never once said he shouldn't be banned for breaking the rules, I mearly pointed that some rules are ridiculous by nature, and that it wasn't as big as deal as some people trying to gather a lynch mob tried to make it out to be.

 

[DragonK]

On 4/25/2018 at 1:48 AM, James II said:

Remind me again why I should miss someone who went around sending porn via in game messages to people (likely children)? Pretty sure that's a step beyond "roleplaying." 

 

On 4/25/2018 at 1:58 AM, James II said:

He was banned for sending porn to children in game. Not for his forum posts.

 

On 4/25/2018 at 3:46 AM, James II said:

So you're saying Alex should allow Rozalia to send porn to kids in his game? 

 

On 4/25/2018 at 3:39 PM, James II said:

There is a delete button. Rozalia didn't have to send porn to kids to get leave the game. It was a ploy for attention and incredibly unethical. The action goes beyond roleplay. It was a dumb thing for him to do and it's sad you defend this action. You shouldn't send porn to kids, it's against the law in most countries. Quit trying to justify it.

 

On 4/30/2018 at 2:35 AM, James II said:

Lol @DragonK making shit up. Where did I say he sent it to people under 13? Quit trying to spin it and accept your friend is a dumbass and probably not the greatest of humans.

I think this is self evident. I do use that word as people who are preteen. But I understand you meant minor in general. Which again also coveres the said group, but also extends to a bit more older group as well.