Confirmed: Jennifer Lawrence has milk dispensers and a vajayjay

[Elieson]

Oh no, let's shun people for looking at picture online of people.

Let's shun them for reading about them in books too

And watching them on television

And having lewd but completely controlled thoughts about attractive people in places doing things

Privacy violation is one thing, but who the hell cares if you use your eyes to look at things and people? If he wants to read his X-men comic book in the corner, let him. If he wants to look at Jennifer Hudgens or whoever, let him. If he wants to say what he did, let him. Why should it be a bad thing to communicate such things in public? Does it make him look less intelligent? Not really. If you are passing judgment [and expecting to convince others to follow your steps] on someone for not only having sexual preferences, but verbalizing them, then who/what gave you that right?

It's like, being human now makes you the minority

---

For the record, I think it's lame that people go after celebs, but with things like iCloud being hack-able, I don't necessarily think it's the celeb's fault for taking lewd selfies and dumping them on the Apple storage center. If I put my family heirlooms in a Chase bank safe, and it got broken into, I'd be pretty pissed myself

Edited September 4, 2014 by Sara.

[Phoenix Wright]

Privacy violation is one thing, but who the hell cares if you use your eyes to look at things and people? If he wants to read his X-men comic book in the corner, let him. If he wants to look at Jennifer Hudgens or whoever, let him. If he wants to say what he did, let him. Why should it be a bad thing to communicate such things in public? Does it make him look less intelligent? Not really. If you are passing judgment [and expecting to convince others to follow your steps] on someone for not only having sexual preferences, but verbalizing them, then who/what gave you that right?

that just so happens to be what this shit storm is about. the nudes weren't posted on her behalf. someone hacked her and several others.

Edited September 4, 2014 by Phoenix Wright

[Elieson]

I get that, but why is raven being judged for having looked at them?

[Phoenix Wright]

we're peeping toms with no consequences, is what's essentially the problem.

this is the reason. it's getting a peek at her, against her wishes, with no consequences.

[Rehab]

i don't think anyone here is disagreeing with any of this portion. yes, invasion of privacy is an offense no matter who the victim is, BUT naturally if someone is in the public eye, they have to bear with a greater risk of having their privacy invaded. that's just how it works...and i'm talking in general. celebrities getting harassed by paparazzi and rabid fans...that's invasion of privacy and personal space that the average joe doesn't normally deal with. because they're popular, there are going to be many people trying to invade their privacy making it a lot harder to prevent than an average everyday person. at this point, the chances of the celebrity having their privacy invaded will be much lower from them being cautious than the fuzz cracking down on hackers and leechers. i am not excusing the people who commit invasion of privacy, but saying "this is bad" isn't going to stop them anytime soon. celebrities are going to need to be mindful of that or else this happens.

HOWEVER, if you want to argue that celebrities aren't specifically targeted as much as i'm making it out to be, then well, sharing nudes is still a risky thing to do, and cyberbullies have ruined many people's lives with that sort of stuff. i agree that people have a right to their privacy no matter who they are, but you're implying that the victims in these cases aren't at fault one bit...that's just outrageous in my opinion. and you know what else?

between a star of a well known and critically acclaimed movie, and a plain jane from down the street, who do you think is going to have their nude pictures reposted all over the internet more often? maybe just one guy managed to leak out an album of nude pictures of a celebrity...and that's all it takes. people around the world know that the pictures are going to get taken down, save the pictures on their hard drives, maybe head to a friend's house, and repost it. repost wherever on the internet they feel like. why? because they feel like it. they do not care that it's morally wrong.

so yeah...unless you find some way to prove me wrong, i refuse to believe that the status of a celebrity has little to no effect on this.

Careful with the ordering and choice of your words there, lest you be dragged down into the depths for having been interpreted as literally blaming the victim

[Siuloir]

the situation is shit but how the fuck are you even surprised that people are reacting like this

this is "the state of humanity" as seen at every point in humanity forever, dude. this isn't just the reaction of serenes forest dot net.

I would like to think better of people.

this is the reason. it's getting a peek at her, against her wishes, with no consequences.

This.

Oh no, let's shun people for looking at picture online of people.

Let's shun them for reading about them in books too

And watching them on television

And having lewd but completely controlled thoughts about attractive people in places doing things

Privacy violation is one thing, but who the hell cares if you use your eyes to look at things and people? If he wants to read his X-men comic book in the corner, let him. If he wants to look at Jennifer Hudgens or whoever, let him. If he wants to say what he did, let him. Why should it be a bad thing to communicate such things in public? Does it make him look less intelligent? Not really. If you are passing judgment [and expecting to convince others to follow your steps] on someone for not only having sexual preferences, but verbalizing them, then who/what gave you that right?

It's like, being human now makes you the minority

What gives someone the right to see someone else naked without their consent? Again, there's plenty of consenting porn for that.

It's a bad thing to communicate in public because you are demeaning a living, breathing, thinking human being. Now I can't presume to know the thoughts of Kate Upton, Jennifer Lawrence, etc. etc., but I'm pretty sure they do not include a desire for the internet to see intimate pictures of them. You can say it harms no one, but it clearly does, as it runs contrary to someone's wishes.

Again, if someone else has something you want, what stops you from stealing it from them? They would prefer you not have it, but you want it, and that's what's important, right? You could walk out your door and rob some random person three blocks away if they had something you want. You could probably even get away with it. Plenty of people do. I assume it's a mixture of fear of reprisal (from the law) and some vague perception that the person you're stealing from is a living person who gets up, eats breakfast, takes a shower, goes to work, has family, etc. etc. If it is in fact only fear of reprisal that motivates you not to do this, then you have some questions to answer about yourself.

[Esau of Isaac]

What gives someone the right to see someone else naked without their consent?

what gives anyone on the internet the right to do anything?

Again, if someone else has something you want, what stops you from stealing it from them? They would prefer you not have it, but you want it, and that's what's important, right? You could walk out your door and rob some random person three blocks away if they had something you want. You could probably even get away with it. Plenty of people do. I assume it's a mixture of fear of reprisal (from the law) and some vague perception that the person you're stealing from is a living person who gets up, eats breakfast, takes a shower, goes to work, has family, etc. etc. If it is in fact only fear of reprisal that motivates you not to do this, then you have some questions to answer about yourself.

Oh god I looked at naked Jlaw pics without her express consent what a monster I have become, this is directly equivalent to mugging someone

fucking lol

[Siuloir]

what gives anyone on the internet the right to do anything?

Oh god I looked at naked Jlaw pics without her express consent what a monster I have become, this is directly equivalent to mugging someone

fucking lol

Took something you wanted, didn't you? Without someone else's content?

The only difference is you're too afraid to mug someone for fear of the consequences. Since you know you can get away with looking at pictures, you do it.

Extreme example: You (and by extension anyone in the 'first world' or whatever we want to purport counts for 'civilized society) would be a much politer person if you lived in a world/region where say, being rude or smug or snarky came with the real and present fear of someone retaliating with violence.

Lack of consequence is what brings out the worst aspects of people.

Edited September 4, 2014 by Siuloir

[Parrhesia]

Well, I suppose that sort of sad state of being is its own punishment. It's really hard to grok that level of lack of empathy, though,

did you really just say 'grok' unironically

[Phoenix Wright]

though i agree with you in principle, i also think you're exaggerating what sort of action checking out nudes is: it's very passive and, most importantly, seemingly harmless. we all know it isn't, but just reading a news article and clicking a link aren't really what anyone would consider an aggressive act in breaching privacy. i used peeping toms as an analogy, and i'll stick to that, but it doesn't work on every level--peeping toms physically stalk unsuspecting victims in their own residences and watch them, which is fairly aggressive.

in the case with celebrity nudes, we don't even personally know them, it's more of the thrill of getting to see your celebrity crushes in the nude because you know you'd never be able to otherwise. as i said, i know that's distasteful, but the point i'm trying to get across is that it isn't as vile or morally reprehensible as you make it seem, because it isn't as invasive.

[Esau of Isaac]

Took something you wanted, didn't you? Without someone else's content?

Haha, equating looking at electronic pictures with literal theft. If I could copy your house I'd "steal" that too. Also your car.

Someone lock me away before I kill again

Extreme example: You (and by extension anyone in the 'first world' or whatever we want to purport counts for 'civilized society) would be a much politer person if you lived in a world/region where say, being rude or smug or snarky came with the real and present fear of someone retaliating with violence.

Ah yes, how very moral, politeness brought about through threats of physical harm. How very civilized this world you speak of is.

You're a riot

Edited September 4, 2014 by Esau of Isaac

[metalsnowman3]

Extreme example: You (and by extension anyone in the 'first world' or whatever we want to purport counts for 'civilized society) would be a much politer person if you lived in a world/region where say, being rude or smug or snarky came with the real and present fear of someone retaliating with violence.

Someone should watch A Clockwork Orange

[Siuloir]

Ah yes, how very moral, politeness brought about through threats of physical harm. How very civilized this world you speak of is.

You're a riot

If you think this world is civilized, then you're the hilarious one.

And no, that world of politeness enforced by violence is neither moral nor civilized. At all. But it's rapidly becoming the only thing that humanity seems capable of fully understanding. I reiterate though: Never did I say that such a world was civilized, though. Merely that fear of reprisal is a pretty powerful motivator. Tell me, do you actually read things before expressing your opinion, or are you just like one of those little yappy dogs that run around at someone's feet making noise?

Someone should watch A Clockwork Orange

Someone has read it. Several times.

Someone also thinks you're missing the point.

There exist numerous psychological studies to correlate lack of consequence with negative behavior.

Edited September 4, 2014 by Siuloir

[Passionfruit Cappuccino]

What gives someone the right to see someone else naked without their consent? Again, there's plenty of consenting porn for that.

It's a bad thing to communicate in public because you are demeaning a living, breathing, thinking human being. Now I can't presume to know the thoughts of Kate Upton, Jennifer Lawrence, etc. etc., but I'm pretty sure they do not include a desire for the internet to see intimate pictures of them. You can say it harms no one, but it clearly does, as it runs contrary to someone's wishes.

Again, if someone else has something you want, what stops you from stealing it from them? They would prefer you not have it, but you want it, and that's what's important, right? You could walk out your door and rob some random person three blocks away if they had something you want. You could probably even get away with it. Plenty of people do. I assume it's a mixture of fear of reprisal (from the law) and some vague perception that the person you're stealing from is a living person who gets up, eats breakfast, takes a shower, goes to work, has family, etc. etc. If it is in fact only fear of reprisal that motivates you not to do this, then you have some questions to answer about yourself.

The thing is, even if there is porn available, the allure of a celebrity's pictures being available is much more appealing to many people. As for having the right, in the end it doesnt really matter if you have a right or not, considering that there isnt a large consequence for looking at the pics.

[metalsnowman3]

World isn't black and white dude, there are shades of grey.

And what you were suggesting earlier was essentially what happened to the main character in the movie at least. Punishing him for even having lewd thoughts is not the same as people actually being good.

Maybe you should try and not relegate every scandal and the reaction to it as the end of the world/humanity.

[Siuloir]

World isn't black and white dude, there are shades of grey.

And what you were suggesting earlier was essentially what happened to the main character in the movie at least. Punishing him for even having lewd thoughts is not the same as people actually being good.

Maybe you should try and not relegate every scandal and the reaction to it as the end of the world/humanity.

At this point you're so far from the point I am trying to make I feel like I'm speaking an entirely different language. The point is that people seem to only respond to direct consequence instead of actually doing the decent thing on their own.

The thing is, even if there is porn available, the allure of a celebrity's pictures being available is much more appealing to many people. As for having the right, in the end it doesnt really matter if you have a right or not, considering that there isnt a large consequence for looking at the pics.

Thank you for proving my point.

You (generalized you, not specific) don't care about if you have a right or not, because you don't face any consequences yourself.

It absolutely matters if you have a right, the fact of the matter is people do not care because nothing happens to them as a result. "There's no harm done." is really, 'there's no harm done to me.' It sucks plenty for the people who are the victims, I am sure.,

Edited September 4, 2014 by Siuloir

[Esau of Isaac]

If you think this world is civilized, then you're the hilarious one.

And no, that world of politeness enforced by violence is neither moral nor civilized. At all. But it's rapidly becoming the only thing that humanity seems capable of fully understanding. I reiterate though: Never did I say that such a world was civilized, though. Merely that fear of reprisal is a pretty powerful motivator. Tell me, do you actually read things before expressing your opinion, or are you just like one of those little yappy dogs that run around at someone's feet making noise?

Who even cares if reprisal is a powerful motivator then? What are you trying to argue? If you're not saying that it's a worthwhile or preferable alternative, then why even bring it up? Yes, violence can be a powerful motivator. No, a society does not need to be founded upon it to create order.

Isn't it rather odd that in this post you find it humorous to consider the world civilized, but posts prior speak of how you believe people are somehow moral enough to not look for pictures on the internet? You can't pick and choose, here, do you hate humans with a passion or do you think they're pretty cool because you're all over the board here

At this point you're so far from the point I am trying to make I feel like I'm speaking an entirely different language. The point is that people seem to only respond to direct consequence instead of actually doing the decent thing on their own.

Implying that what you specifically think is the decent thing to do is any objective standard.

Edited September 4, 2014 by Esau of Isaac

[Raven]

You (generalized you, not specific) don't care about if you have a right or not, because you don't face any consequences yourself.

Pretty much.

[Tryhard]

this topic was definitely a bad idea raven

[Passionfruit Cappuccino]

It absolutely matters if you have a right, the fact of the matter is people do not care because nothing happens to them as a result. "There's no harm done." is really, 'there's no harm done to me.' It sucks plenty for the people who are the victims, I am sure.,

of course it means "theres no harm done to me". thats the whole point. Many people dont care about the ones that are affected

this topic was definitely a bad idea raven

Its not that bad, just very controversial

[Raven]

what's life without a bit of controversy

[Passionfruit Cappuccino]

what's life without a bit of controversy

Booooooring

[Kreekakon]

My simple thoughts:

Not looking at the leaked celebrity nude is the small act of showing sympathy to the celebrities affected, and respecting their wishes that they do not wish for these pictures to be seen...even if it is just by you. Looking at the pictures shows a lack of respect for what they would've wanted.

There is no one stopping you from looking at the pictures, nothing can stop you if you wanted. It is just that one should bear in mind that the celebrities who didn't want this whole ordeal to happen wishes the fewer people who look at the pictures the better. There's no doubt that they made a mistake, and are suffering for it. But it would greatly help that we helped them suffer less by doing what they wished...even if it is in secret, and no one will realize what we are doing.

To decide not to look at the pictures is as whole nothing more than an act of personal conscience. It will not do anything for the real world at all. The only thing it will do is let yourself know that you are doing the right thing in respecting the wishes of the celebrities.

But....this is probably asking for too much from the majority of people these days.

[Siuloir]

Who even cares if reprisal is a powerful motivator then? What are you trying to argue? If you're not saying that it's a worthwhile or preferable alternative, then why even bring it up? Yes, violence can be a powerful motivator. No, a society does not need to be founded upon it to create order.

Isn't it rather odd that in this post you find it humorous to consider the world civilized, but posts prior speak of how you believe people are somehow moral enough to not look for pictures on the internet? You can't pick and choose, here, do you hate humans with a passion or do you think they're pretty cool because you're all over the board here

I'm not trying to 'argue' anything. I'm pointing out the simple fact that people are scared of facing consequences for their action to an order of magnitude greater than they are desirous of doing things simply because they are right.

Are they capable of not looking? Absolutely. People have the capacity to be decent. They choose to do so otherwise.

Pretty much.

of course it means "theres no harm done to me". thats the whole point. Many people dont care about the ones that are affected

Yes. And that lack of empathy is disheartening. If it were hundreds of thousands of people who saw nudes of a girlfriend/boyfriend/wife/husband/friend/family member of theirs, a person would be upset. Why? Because they know the person in question. But since the celebrities in question aren't conceptualized so much as people but as 'a thing which brings me entertainment', it does not matter to them. Dunbar's Number rears its head again, essentially - It's under the same auspices as why your dog dying affects you more than thousands of people in Africa dying from Ebola.

[Raven]

What reasons do you have for giving a damn about the people who's hade their nudes leaked? The way I see it is that there's absolutely nothing I can do about it, so what's the point in worrying about it? Yeah it's shitty for it to happen to them, but what can you do aside from not look at them yourself and chastising those that do? Nothing.