Biden: Everyone Knows Someone Who Blackmails with Naked Pics

[ataraxia]

Ah, but you see they were very good at not talking about it and turning a blind eye, so that made it a much better world, obviously.

Haha, yes. It was brushed under the rug and it was a lot more hypocrisy.

And besides, I don’t think The idea of seeing homosexuality as some moral perversion and deviation was ever a great ideal. I would say that if anything, we are probably more moral now for getting rid of that “ideal.”

Morals are about making sure people don’t get hurt. No one gets hurt with homosexual behavior. People do get hurt when homosexuals are killed and abused for something that is not in their control.

 

[jnug]

Sorry Joe.

No we don’t. And not everyone invaded women and little girls private space with inappropriate touching and hugging like you do pops.

How many pics of you Joe are floating around out there?

How about the good Dr? Any spicy pics there Joe?

What an a$$hat.

===========

Biden is willing to bet that everyone knows someone who took a naked picture of someone with whom they have had an intimate relationship and then shared it.

“So we’ve established a new civil rights cause of action* for those whose intimate images were shared on the public screen. How many times have you heard…I bet everybody knows somebody, somewhere along the line that in an intimate relationship, what happened was the guy takes a revealing picture of his naked friend, or whatever, in a compromising position and then literally, in a sense, blackmails her or mortifies that person.”

Yeah, no, crazy old man. I have never met anyone who had their naked pictures shared online – not ever.

Biden: Everyone Knows Someone Who Blackmails with Naked Pics

Tweet Biden is willing to bet that everyone knows someone who took a naked picture of someone with whom they have had an intimate relationship and then shared it. Christian Gold Company Defies Industry’s Retirement Fearmongering Through Prayer and Biblical Hope “So we’ve established a new civil...

www.independentsentinel.com

You can't be serious. You and the author of the piece must lead pretty cloistered lives.

 

[Cope]

Those have always been ideals. The vast majority of people have never lived by those ideals.

So they are no longer ideals and we shouldn't mourn the loss of them?

 

[ataraxia]

So they are no longer ideals and we shouldn't mourn the loss of them?

Many of them still are. But we have found that those who go around proclaiming them the loudest, whether Muslim radicals, Catholic priests, Evangelical megachurch scammers, or the political party advocating "family values", are the biggest hypocrites, and just do that for purposes of political power and control. So sorry we are a little skeptical. It's not that we are against the ideals- just against flaming hypocrites.

And some of those values, of course, like seeing homosexuality a sin or women in the workplace a sin, are just obsolete and barbaric- leftovers of the bronze age which no longer have a place in the modern world.

 

[Cope]

I am sure everyone values their deals differently. Homosexuality affects me not at all. Women in the workplace either.
Thou shall not murder, or covet my wife though ...
The staying away from sex thing until you can financially support any potential offspring.
Respecting your elders (and I'd add EVERYONE)
Just be KIND.
Sexs, drugs, and rock n roll really did a number on America.


Personal religion is a great thing in my eyes.
ORGANIZED religion on the other hand, is the basis of a lot of evils.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

No. Most of us don’t know anyone doing that sick crap. Joe trying the everyone does it excuse is pretty stupid if not sick.

No, that's not what he is saying. I personally don't have many personal relationships in which the subject of nude pics would ever come up. Nevertheless, that does not mean that someone with whom I am familiar has not experienced this. It simply means they haven't share it with me.

Knowing how your online persona is, I suspect that many people in your real life would choose not to share personal details with you. You probably have people in your life that are gay who would never share that aspect of themselves with you.

The reality of everyone has a camera and the prevalence of easy access to social media and digital media exist forever somewhere is what he is talking about.

But feel free to twist the president's words, actions, and image any way you like. We've come to expect it of you.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

"Allowing" is not always the case. Pretty sure it takes about half a second for someone to pretend to be checking a text message then grab a quick snapshot or start recording, and that's if they're even awake. For those who do allow intimate photos to be taken or shared there's usually a level of trust there, which sometimes is betrayed.

I recall many years ago a darling of the right named Dr Laura Schlessinger was found to have posed for nude photos by her then boyfriend. It really took the wind out of her sails as it pertained to her preachy mantra about morality and sexual conduct outside of marriage. She was shown to be as big a rightwing hypocrite as anyone. Karma is a digital bitch.

 

[VySky]

No, that's not what he is saying. I personally don't have many personal relationships in which the subject of nude pics would ever come up. Nevertheless, that does not mean that someone with whom I am familiar has not experienced this. It simply means they haven't share it with me.

Knowing how your online persona is, I suspect that many people in your real life would choose not to share personal details with you. You probably have people in your life that are gay who would never share that aspect of themselves with you.

The reality of everyone has a camera and the prevalence of easy access to social media and digital media exist forever somewhere is what he is talking about.

But feel free to twist the president's words, actions, and image any way you like. We've come to expect it of you.

Yea. Joe’s son Hunter. aka The victim.

Oh boy.

 

[ataraxia]

So they are no longer ideals and we shouldn't mourn the loss of them?

Depends on which ones. You see, we have come to realize morality is not about just random commands from some other worldly source that we must obey blindly. It’s not like a game of Simon says. Morality has a very practical, this worldly purpose: to prevent people from getting hurt, especially those in positions of vulnerability. Most normal human beings, who are not mentally deranged like psychopaths, have the sense of empathy and get that what they are doing may be hurting someone else. This sense and instinct can be extremely powerful. Many people actually physically throw up when they see others getting hurt in an unjust way. It is biologically hardwired and is a critical part of being human. Human beings are social animals, and rely on each other for their very survival, if not thriving. If you are the only person stranded on a deserted island somewhere, you can knock yourself out doing whatever you like, and it would make no sense to talk of anything you can do as Immoral. But as soon as you introduce even one other person, or even any sentient being like some animal there, only then can you begin to talk of morality.

So once you start seeing morality in this way, you begin to see that we as individuals and societies have a good internal moral compass, and will not be completely lost if we put aside religious commands and old traditional ways of doing things- often based on nothing more than tradition or inadequate knowledge. In fact, because we began to rely more on experience, knowledge, judgment, and reasoning, we stop listening to wily politicians and religious leaders who tell us we have no internal moral compass and are innately wicked, and so we need them to tell us what to do. That’s a very good thing. They want you to not trust your own eyes, your own brains, or your own heart, so they can manipulate and exploit you according to their own agenda. No thanks.

In fact, that was why the experiment of the separation of church and state in this country ended up working so well.

“ During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution...In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not.”
-James Madison


So again, if you want to get nostalgic about the changes in our moral ideals, it depends on which ones. Women not being allowed in the workplace, divorce being considered a sin, corporal punishment of children (“spare the rod, spoil the child”), trying to pray away the gay- even burning witches alive at the stake? Yes, we could do without those ideals. No need to get too nostalgic. We have done much better as a society by doing so.

 

[Mithrae]

If you are the only person stranded on a deserted island somewhere, you can knock yourself out doing whatever you like, and it would make no sense to talk of anything you can do as Immoral. But as soon as you introduce even one other person, or even any sentient being like some animal there, only then can you begin to talk of morality.

Interestingly, this means that in the case of strict monotheism as in Islam or Judaism it's all but nonsensical to talk of God as being "good"; given a God consisting of 'three persons' as in trinitarian Christianity it makes a little more sense, but it would still be an extremely limited kind of morality or goodness from the interplay of three more or less identical, omnipotent beings. A liberally-minded believer might speculate that perhaps that's why the 'morals' of the Tanakh are so barbarous, the early efforts of a deity struggling to come to grips with morality in unfamiliar social dynamics, but learning more as the millennia pass and coming back to offer some slightly better tips in the New Testament. Maybe in another few thousand years it will actually be accurate to say that God is good!

 

[ataraxia]

Interestingly, this means that in the case of strict monotheism as in Islam or Judaism it's all but nonsensical to talk of God as being "good"; given a God consisting of 'three persons' as in trinitarian Christianity it makes a little more sense, but it would still be an extremely limited kind of morality or goodness from the interplay of three more or less identical, omnipotent beings. A liberally-minded believer might speculate that perhaps that's why the 'morals' of the Tanakh are so barbarous, the early efforts of a deity struggling to come to grips with morality in unfamiliar social dynamics, but learning more as the millennia pass and coming back to offer some slightly better tips in the New Testament. Maybe in another few thousand years it will actually be accurate to say that God is good!

If you see morality in the way I described, it would make no difference to our sense of morality whether God exists or even if he is necessarily good or bad. Who cares? We would want to do the right thing regardless of the answer to any of those questions. The existence or non-existence of God would then be some question of idle curiosity, of no more relevance to every-day questions and dilemmas of ethics and morality as the existence or non-existence of parallel universes or something.

This reliance of external authority for moral decision-making is a little like a little kid who thinks that the only way they will know what the right thing to do is is what mommy says about it. They cannot imagine being able to have the maturity, knowledge, and judgment to decide for themselves. That's fine for a 5- year-old. But by the time your kid is in their late teens, you would think most parents would be proud that their kid has the maturity and judgment to make difficult decisions and judgments on complex matters without constantly asking them.

Moral issues can be decided on their own merits. You do not need external authority- whether parents, priests, or otherworldly deities' opinions. I don't think religious people have that level of maturity or confidence in their own knowledge or judgment. Having met and talked with them, maybe that's not such a bad thing after all.

The only problem then is that they are like blind people who always have to be led around by someone else- a priest or something. That's usually too much power for a wily priest or politicians not to exploit and manipulate for their own purposes- and history seems to provide ample evidence.

_____________________________________________
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution...In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not.”
-James Madison

"The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity."
-James Madison

"Mingling religion with politics may be disavowed and reprobated by every inhabitant of America...All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish (Muslim), appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
-Thomas Payne