- Joined
- Jan 28, 2012
- Messages
- 16,386
- Reaction score
- 7,793
- Location
- Where I am now
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
First, the poll should allow for multiple options. It's the idiots fault for taking the photos in the first place and keeping them insecurely, the equivalent in the real world of leaving them lying around the house. It's the hackers fault for committing the crime of hacking the cloud and reposting them.
apparently the only thing keeping some of you creeps from peeking in windows is the odds of getting caught, not because it is wrong to sneak around and obtain views of naked women against their wishes
apparently the only thing keeping some of you creeps from peeking in windows is the odds of getting caught, not because it is wrong to sneak around and obtain views of naked women against their wishes
Those who own the photograph do have a right to privacy. They also have a responsibility to to take reasonable actions to maintain that privacy. Putting that stuff on the internet and expecting it to remain private IS NOT reasonable.
How many celebrity "hacks" will have to happen before people figure out that hanging your personal laundry in the middle of a freeway isn't a particularly good idea? Hell, between the people that "leak" their own stuff, the fakes and the idiots who just can't figure it all out I can't believe that someone would actually believe that anything is going to be "private" on the internet for very long.
That's what drives me crazy about some of these topics recently. My wife went off on a nice 15 minute rant to me the other day about the women complaining about and lecturing people over the negatives of date-rape detecting finger nail polish.
We don't live in a utopia. It'd be nice if we could "end violence" or "end people invading peoples privacy" but to think that doing so is an achievable reality is naivity of the highest sort. That doesn't mean that as a society we should promote not engaging in violence and not violtaing peoples privacy, but it does mean that we shouldn't just ignore the realities and act like everyone should just carry along however they like.
WANTING there not to be violence or WANTING there not to be people who violate peoples privacy doesn't magically make it so; and if you live your life in a way that assumes those things don't exist simply because "they shouldn't" then you're going to have issues. Sorry, that's the truth.
And the dirty little secret is EVERYONE KNOWS THIS and generally engages in it; but they just don't want to acknowledge that when they're on their activist agendas. Why do I say that?
How many of you lock the doors to your house or your car every time you get out of your car?
Should you HAVE to lock your doors? Of course not. We should never fear that someone is going to come into our private property and take our stuffs. Our world shouldn't be one where such happens. But it does, and that's not going to magically stop even if we spend years and years as a society telling people that going into others private property and taking stuff is bad.
So we lock our stuff, because we know it's smart to take precautions against the realities of today. If we don't lock our stuff is it guaranteed it will be entered and things taken? Not necessarily. But there's a better chance that it's going to happen due to our irresponsability in light of reality. This is common sense type stuff that EVERYONE does.
Why it's okay to make believe that the world is a utopia and people should be free to act like that utopia exists in some cases, while in others it's routine to deal with reality as just that...reality
From a general population stand point...
Yes. That's basically right. That's a large part of the premise of your social contract philosophers that were kind of the cornerstone of this country being established. It's the cornerstone of most established societies over the years.
People, when left entirely up to their own devices, are often going to do whatever suits their purposes. It's only when you place some sort of societal or legal expectation upon them that said measurement of what "suits their purpose" change.
If there were no laws against drunk driving do you think the amount of drunk drivers wouldn't shoot up? If there were no laws against theft do you think the amount of people stealing things wouldn't shoot up? If society didn't have a negative social stigma to drinking that there wouldn't be more people that knock back a few every night?
Yes, there are groups of people in the world that would do things that society views as immoral or illegal if said things were easier to do or had less reprucussions for doing it. This is a surprise to you?
I don't deserve to have my TV stolen whether or not I leave my house unlocked. It's still my TV and I have a right to it, while others don't.
But I would have to be pretty stupid and reckless to leave my house unlocked.
it's surprising to me the # of people that are showing public support for peeping Tom's. I realize they have a level of anonymity posting on this site, but it is still creepy seeing it.
You're talking about the people who have had especially large and clear windows installed facing the public street precisely so the public will watch them in the first place.
Then you must be totally creeped out by the celebrities themselves whose entire careers are built upon encouraging people to peep them. It's like taking up mud wrestling and complaining that you get dirty.
That's what drives me crazy about some of these topics recently. My wife went off on a nice 15 minute rant to me the other day about the women complaining about and lecturing people over the negatives of date-rape detecting finger nail polish.
We don't live in a utopia. It'd be nice if we could "end violence" or "end people invading peoples privacy" but to think that doing so is an achievable reality is naivity of the highest sort. That doesn't mean that as a society we should promote not engaging in violence and not violtaing peoples privacy, but it does mean that we shouldn't just ignore the realities and act like everyone should just carry along however they like.
WANTING there not to be violence or WANTING there not to be people who violate peoples privacy doesn't magically make it so; and if you live your life in a way that assumes those things don't exist simply because "they shouldn't" then you're going to have issues. Sorry, that's the truth.
And the dirty little secret is EVERYONE KNOWS THIS and generally engages in it; but they just don't want to acknowledge that when they're on their activist agendas. Why do I say that?
How many of you lock the doors to your house or your car every time you get out of your car?
Should you HAVE to lock your doors? Of course not. We should never fear that someone is going to come into our private property and take our stuffs. Our world shouldn't be one where such happens. But it does, and that's not going to magically stop even if we spend years and years as a society telling people that going into others private property and taking stuff is bad.
So we lock our stuff, because we know it's smart to take precautions against the realities of today. If we don't lock our stuff is it guaranteed it will be entered and things taken? Not necessarily. But there's a better chance that it's going to happen due to our irresponsability in light of reality. This is common sense type stuff that EVERYONE does.
Why it's okay to make believe that the world is a utopia and people should be free to act like that utopia exists in some cases, while in others it's routine to deal with reality as just that...reality
One of the most interesting bits of this situation has been watching the reaction and contrasting it to the last major public figure who had private information leaked. What I've seen is that all the indignation all over my facebook page and over the internet supposedly about "privacy" (including phrases like "psychic violence" and "virtual assault") are all absolutely hollow bull****. Most of these people aren't actually caring about "privacy", they care about OTHER political agendas and issues and see this particular issue as a means of pushing it. Namely, they are neutral or approve of the "private" information and thus they disapprove of it being released. If they disapprove of the "private" information then they approve of it being released.
Case in point is Donald Sterling, where the illegal obtaining of private information of his was released to the public causing irrecovable damage to him (both his personal and business life), and the outcry regarding his "privacy" was mild at best and was largely ignored in an effort to punish him for those private things that were illegally exposed.
Do I have a massive issue with the treatment Donald Sterling got and the treatment being shown to the celeberities by and large? No. But I do have an issue with those ACTING like their concern and issue is with the "invasion of privacy" that occured when that's clearly not their concern, and in reality this is just another cudgel to use to beat people over the head with the feminist agenda.
One of the most interesting bits of this situation...
Case in point is Donald Sterling, where the illegal obtaining of private information of his was released to the public causing irrecovable damage to him (both his personal and business life), and the outcry regarding his "privacy" was mild at best and was largely ignored in an effort to punish him for those private things that were illegally exposed.
Do I have a massive issue with the treatment Donald Sterling got and the treatment being shown to the celeberities by and large? No. But I do have an issue with those ACTING like their concern and issue is with the "invasion of privacy" that occured when that's clearly not their concern, and in reality this is just another cudgel to use to beat people over the head with the feminist agenda.
I see your point but as previously mentioned leaving the door open is not an invitation to come in and steal. That is like blaming Yale because their locks can be picked.
I get what you are saying but that doesn't make the victim of the crime responsible.
Yeah, but that's uncommon for most people to NOT use their phone for photo's, including sensitive ones. I think they were under the illusion that their photo's were not accessible from the Internet. Many of these software companies like Google and Apple want to merge everyone's personal data and have open access, which we now see is a flawed concept. And they don't openly explain how all their software works thoroughly, till something crappy happens.
What do you think "celebrity" means in this day and age?
From the article it appears the photos were stolen. In that case 100% responsibility for the crime on the thief. Blaming the women is the equivalent of blaming a homeowner for theft because he left his door open. An open door is not an invitation to come in steal.
We're talking about celebrities here. These are people who have a whole posse of paparazzi chasing them everywhere they go. The KNOW that there is a premium on any picture of a slipped nipple or whatever.
No one is suggesting you should not take basic precautions. No one I see is making believe the world is a utopia. Your long winded rant is misplaced.
it doesn't mean creepos can try to invade their privacy, sorry.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?