Can we talk about the apparent iCloud break-in?

Status
Not open for further replies.
No, it absolutely is not. I can say your argument is poor, or even terrible and it is not an insult from an argumentative stand point. I made no claims about you, only the flaws of your argument.

You didn't even bother to address my argument. You didn't bother to address it even after I pointed it out to you that you didn't address it.

You then in fact didn't say it was "poor" or describe it remotely constructively, you stated that it wasn't in fact an argument. Being hyperbolic to someone who is being calm with you is insulting.
 
Complete bullshit. Human curiosity man. I might be curious about what's in my neighbors house. I could break in, or I could view what's inside via being notified that there are some pics leaked online. To you this is the same? Wtf?
Human curiosity has to be the worst excuse I've ever heard to break people's privacy. I'm stunned how many people think it matters.
 
Saying "to be fair" is saying I haven't been fair in my assessment. You've added that peeping Toms carry more risk. I've said this as well. But that point doesn't really change the dynamic of the argument. My very argument is that people that search these pics are equivalent to lazy peeping Toms who are only not peeping Toms because they are afraid of the risks.
I'm not a peeping Tom because it's a sleazy thing to do. I've looked at the pics because they are public. Yes, they were not intended for that matter, but that's the case for many things. Donald Sterling said his comments in private, I still listened. Justin Bieber said a racist joke in private, I still listened. Once something transfers over to the public domain it's fair game in my opinion. To equate people who have looked at the pictures to people who went out of their way to hack someone is laughable.
 
lol. I dont even know who most of these celebrity names are.
I bet the Rihanna pics would be pretty wild. She always seems very proud and happy to show off her bod to the public.

She did some nudes for a magazine a few months ago. You can feel morally okay about jerking off to them.
 
Shit I am being way more insulting to you needle dicked little pissants, come at me if you want to get all touchy about this shit. Fact is, you're defending the release of seriously personal material about your fellow human beings for... What? How is the public served by seeing the tits and/or beef curtains of a young woman who has chosen to make a career of acting? How is this worth violating the privacy of one of our own?
 
lol. I dont even know who most of these celebrity names are.
I bet the Rihanna pics would be pretty wild. She always seems very proud and happy to show off her bod to the public.

This is Krysten Ritter dude.

krysten-ritter.jpg


She did some nudes for a magazine a few months ago. You can feel morally okay about jerking off to them.

LOL
 
Shit I am being way more insulting to you needle dicked little pissants, come at me if you want to get all touchy about this shit. Fact is, you're defending the release of seriously personal material about your fellow human beings for... What? How is the public served by seeing the tits and/or beef curtains of a young woman who has chosen to make a career of acting? How is this worth violating the privacy of one of our own?

Classy.
 
longer than that

playboy has bought photos of people before and used them

vanna white had pictures of herself published and those were taken by her boyfriend, for her boyfriend only

Well, yeah we could go back to the 80s with Vanna White, Vanessa Williams and so on in the 80s or go back to the 50s with Marilyn Monroe or others but I went with Pamela Anderson/Tommy Lee because that was the first one to really be pushed by the internet from the leaks of the video tape stolen by someone who broke into their home and no one really cared.
 
Teresa Palmer's leaked nudes are outdoors. Are those okay? I'm just curious.
I don't know who that is or what the context of the photos is, but it would depend on the intent behind taking them and whether she had an expectation of not having her picture taken wherever she was.

I appreciate the response, and I agree with the bulk of your post as it echoes my thoughts on the matter.

I think pushing this topic a little bit further, do you think Clinton deserved to have his privacy violated with the intimate details of his sexual encounters with Lewinsky (presuming, of course, it was fully consensual and ignoring the power dynamics of the situation)? Harping on your last point in particular, given Clinton's prominence in the political sphere and the (at the very least) defensible notion that Clinton's indiscretion in his sexual life could inform the public on his perspectives on morality, do you think the public was entitled to know about his extramarital relations?

It's hard for me to form a full opinion on the matter because I don't remember all the details and wasn't as politically aware as I am now.

That said, the analogy seems strained to me because it is, as with the Romney question, comparing information (which is the domain of speech) with photographs. Had there been any sort of photographic evidence of the Lewinsky affair I would have absolutely put that in the same category as these celebrity photos. And while I think that the media is rather disgusting with the lewd and sensationalistic way it reports on political sex scandals, and also that the affairs of married couples should usually remain private unless they involve a crime or injury to a third party, it's hard for me to argue that there's absolutely no public interest whatsoever in them, for these reasons:
  • As you say, it can be relevant when assessing a politician's morality (although I think 95% of the time this is just an excuse used by people trying to justify their own prurient interest in a sex scandal).
  • If an official is putting himself in a vulnerable position with someone and opening himself to manipulation, blackmail, or anything else that could potentially compromise his or her actions, that fact is in the public interest.
  • Conversely, if an official is exploiting his position to take advantage of an underling (as Clinton did), that is also relevant information to informing the public of the politician's morality and attitude about those he governs.
Obviously, none of these are in any way applicable to celebrities.
 
Brother Justin: "Good afternoon Brother Thompson, how was your weekend?"

Brother Thompson: "Quite good dear brother Justin, I went fishing and spent some time outdoors. How was yours?"

Brother Justin: "I was rather busy with things at home. Tell me, did you hear of the great celebrity hacking that occurred with female actresses and models? Such a travesty I tell you, I hope the perpetrators are sent to the fiery depths of hell where they shall roast for all eternity."

Brother Thompson: "Yes I heard a bit, such a shame. Who was among the victims if I may ask?"

Brother Justin: "It matters not, it shouldn't matter if it was Melissa McCarthy or Kate Upton."

Brother Thompson: Kate Upton you say? Do you mean this Kate Upton?
KateUpton-CatDaddy1.gif


Brother Justin: "WHY DOES IT MATTER, DO WISH TO COMMIT SIN AND VIEW HER PICTURES WITHOUT CONSENT!! IF YOU COMMIT SUCH A THING BROTHER THEN I AM SORRY FOR YOUR SAD SELF WITH YOUR FLACCID PENIS IN YOUR COLD HAND VIEWING UPON HER SANCTIMONIOUS IMAGE WITH YOUR DEAD EYES."

Brother Thompson: "SAVE ME BROTHER JUSTIN!!! I WISH TO VIEW IT SO BAD....... I mean cmon look at those curves, she's so gorgeous........... AWAY EVIL THOUGHTS, SAVE ME BROTHER JUSTIN, WHY CAN'T I PREFER ALTAR BOYS LIKE YOU!!!"

Brother Justin: "Fear not brother, give me your phone and your computer and I shall save you from your own dirty, vile soul."

Brother Thompson: "Thank you brother, you have saved me from my own dark and evil urges. Why was the Kim Kardashian sex tape so much easier to avoid than this?"

Brother Justin: "Fuck that bitch she just wanted the attention"
 
Human curiosity has to be the worst excuse I've ever heard to break people's privacy. I'm stunned how many people think it matters.

I am stunned you seem to not understand the basic concept. It's not an excuse. It's the way people are and the way things work. It's the reason why TMZ is in business and is also why people are looking at those pics.

But people can pretend that the only people interested in these things are degenerates fapping furiously at each pic. I'm in reality where people look for no other reason that they can.
 
Shit I am being way more insulting to you needle dicked little pissants, come at me if you want to get all touchy about this shit. Fact is, you're defending the release of seriously personal material about your fellow human beings for... What? How is the public served by seeing the tits and/or beef curtains of a young woman who has chosen to make a career of acting? How is this worth violating the privacy of one of our own?

I didn't defend the picture leak (and I'm the one claiming the guy is being insulting.)

That's part of what is so insulting about his reply to me. Completely ignored that I wasn't defending seeking out the pictures other than to say it's not the same thing as being a peeping Tom. You can point out the harm in this leak/the people seeking it out, etc. without making bad arguments.
 
Well, yeah we could go back to the 80s with Vanna White, Vanessa Williams and so on in the 80s or go back to the 50s with Marilyn Monroe or others but I went with Pamela Anderson/Tommy Lee because that was the first one to really be pushed by the internet from the leaks of the video tape stolen by someone who broke into their home and no one really cared.
the marlyn monroe one was meant for public consumption though correct me if im wrong

the pamela anderson, vanna white, jackie o (mentioned last page) were not

(i get youre saying something else im just clarifying)
 
You didn't even bother to address my argument. You didn't bother to address it even after I pointed it out to you that you didn't address it.

You then in fact didn't say it was "poor" or describe it remotely constructively, you stated that it wasn't in fact an argument. Being hyperbolic to someone who is being calm with you is insulting.
Re-read it and I see how I misread it. Your argument of trespassing is not completely relevant. Not all peeping Toms are trespassers. Not all peeping Toms are caught and make the victim feel insecure. What we do know is that these women know millions of people are looking at their most private moments and that I would argue exceeds any level of discomfort a peeping Tom puts on a woman outside of the fear of being in immediate danger, if that is the case.
 
I'm not a peeping Tom because it's a sleazy thing to do. I've looked at the pics because they are public. Yes, they were not intended for that matter, but that's the case for many things. Donald Sterling said his comments in private, I still listened. Justin Bieber said a racist joke in private, I still listened. Once something transfers over to the public domain it's fair game in my opinion. To equate people who have looked at the pictures to people who went out of their way to hack someone is laughable.
Looking at private photos leaked online is a sleazy thing to do.
 
I guess there's nothing like a new round of leaked photos to let one know just how out of the loop they are when it comes to celebrity. Honestly, I recognized like 3 names and was only able to conjure up an image of two, one because I saw her in American Hustle recently and the other has been an internet sensation for so long that the only revelation would be the shape and color of her nipples.
 
Shit I am being way more insulting to you needle dicked little pissants, come at me if you want to get all touchy about this shit. Fact is, you're defending the release of seriously personal material about your fellow human beings for... What? How is the public served by seeing the tits and/or beef curtains of a young woman who has chosen to make a career of acting? How is this worth violating the privacy of one of our own?
First I've seen someone suggest others think they are entitled to leaked pictures, now apparently people are defending the hacker(s) who released the pictures. People are doing the conversation such a disservice by arguing against imaginary people.
 
Brother Justin: "Good afternoon Brother Thompson, how was your weekend?"

Brother Thompson: "Quite good dear brother Justin, I went fishing and spent some time outdoors. How was yours?"

Brother Justin: "I was rather busy with things at home. Tell me, did you hear of the great celebrity hacking that occurred with female actresses and models? Such a travesty I tell you, I hope the perpetrators are sent to the fiery depths of hell where they shall roast for all eternity."

Brother Thompson: "Yes I heard a bit, such a shame. Who was among the victims if I may ask?"

Brother Justin: "It matters not, it shouldn't matter if it was Melissa McCarthy or Kate Upton."

Brother Thompson: Kate Upton you say? Do you mean this Kate Upton?
KateUpton-CatDaddy1.gif


Brother Justin: "WHY DOES IT MATTER, DO WISH TO COMMIT SIN AND VIEW HER PICTURES WITHOUT CONSENT!! IF YOU COMMIT SUCH A THING BROTHER THEN I AM SORRY FOR YOUR SAD SELF WITH YOUR FLACCID PENIS IN YOUR COLD HAND VIEWING UPON HER SANCTIMONIOUS IMAGE WITH YOUR DEAD EYES."

Brother Thompson: "SAVE ME BROTHER JUSTIN!!! I WISH TO VIEW IT SO BAD....... I mean cmon look at those curves, she's so gorgeous........... AWAY EVIL THOUGHTS, SAVE ME BROTHER JUSTIN, WHY CAN'T I PREFER ALTAR BOYS LIKE YOU!!!"

Brother Justin: "Fear not brother, give me your phone and your computer and I shall save you from your own dirty, vile soul."

Brother Thompson: "Thank you brother, you have saved me from my own dark and evil urges. Why was the Kim Kardashian sex tape so much easier to avoid than this?"

Brother Justin: "Fuck that bitch she just wanted the attention"

lol
 
Re-read it and I see how I misread it. Your argument of trespassing is not completely relevant. Not all peeping Toms are trespassers. Not all peeping Toms are caught and make the victim feel insecure. What we do know is that these women know millions of people are looking at their most private moments and that I would argue exceeds any level of discomfort a peeping Tom puts on a woman outside of the fear of being in immediate danger, if that is the case.

It is relevant.

Peeping Tom's have in fact, been caught.

The act of being a peeping Tom is increasing the risk that people will feel unsafe in their homes.

The act of downloading a picture that has been made public by someone else is not the same thing. That act alone is anonymous and only a small part of promoting the more heinous act which is more comparable to the peeping Tom. It's hyperbolic to equate the 2 and unnecessary. Downloading the photos, seeking them out, etc. can be explained as wrong without jumping to your ridiculous conclusion.
 
Who is defending the hackers? Jfc, this is getting messy as fuck. I'd go get a mod if I wasn't so sure this would be closed.

I don't want to impede on anyone's conversation, but ffs can we get this shit together?
 
Well, yeah we could go back to the 80s with Vanna White, Vanessa Williams and so on in the 80s or go back to the 50s with Marilyn Monroe or others but I went with Pamela Anderson/Tommy Lee because that was the first one to really be pushed by the internet from the leaks of the video tape stolen by someone who broke into their home and no one really cared.

This is only tangentially related to the topic at hand, but I'm going to say it because I've read a couple replies think some people don't actually know it.

And celebrity sex tape that is commercially released wasn't leaked. Period. Ever. You know how I know that? Because in general, to sell it you have to have releases from everyone on camera. And more to the point, since the mid 90s you actually have to have proof on record that anyone appearing in a commercially produced adult video is over the age of 18. And by proof, I mean things like photocopied drivers licenses or birth certificates. So while the Pam and Tommy tape may have originally been stolen when it was sold to the production company, they fully agreed to allowing it to be sold by said production company once they got their hands on it. Same with Paris Hilton, same with Kim Kardashian. Don't compare this to those, because it's not the same.

the marlyn monroe one was meant for public consumption though correct me if im wrong

Yeah, the Marilyn Monroe shoot was just a nude professional photo shoot that she did as a model before she became famous. There was literally no expectation of privacy for that one. The Vanessa Williams Ms. America thing in the 80s was the same thing.
 
Shit I am being way more insulting to you needle dicked little pissants, come at me if you want to get all touchy about this shit. Fact is, you're defending the release of seriously personal material about your fellow human beings for... What? How is the public served by seeing the tits and/or beef curtains of a young woman who has chosen to make a career of acting? How is this worth violating the privacy of one of our own?

Why are you talking so negatively about your fellow human beings? For what? How is the public served by your shitty ass attitude towards others?
 
Who is defending the hackers? Jfc, this is getting messy as fuck. I'd go get a mod if I wasn't so sure this would be closed.

I don't want to impede on anyone's conversation, but ffs can we get this shit together?

All I'm seeing is that jim-jam bongs dude insulting other people lol.


Edit:Im not in the conversation just..

0044.gif
 
Who is defending the hackers? Jfc, this is getting messy as fuck. I'd go get a mod if I wasn't so sure this would be closed.

I don't want to impede on anyone's conversation, but ffs can we get this shit together?

This, we get nothing by this discussion. Is going nowhere.
 
I never trusted that cloud.
too nebulous and decentralized, with zero oversight.
I warned them this would happen. they'll be burning our books next. Making us watch shitty movies instead.
 
We should continue talking past each other, creating strawmen, blaming victims and comparing people to pedophiles, the fruits of the convo have been great so far.
 
the marlyn monroe one was meant for public consumption though correct me if im wrong

the pamela anderson, vanna white, jackie o (mentioned last page) were not

(i get youre saying something else im just clarifying)

She took the photos with a photographer at a time when she needed money. After she became famous the photographer sold the pictures and was still a scandal back then.
 
I never trusted that cloud.
too nebulous and decentralized, with zero oversight.
I warned them this would happen. they'll be burning our books next. Making us watch shitty movies instead.

I've seen you a lot lately for some reason. Just wanted to say that I enjoy your posts.
 
It is relevant.

Peeping Tom's have in fact, been caught.

The act of being a peeping Tom is increasing the risk that people will feel unsafe in their homes.

The act of downloading a picture that has been made public by someone else is not the same thing. That act alone is anonymous and only a small part of promoting the more heinous act which is more comparable to the peeping Tom. It's hyperbolic to equate the 2 and unnecessary. Downloading the photos, seeking them out, etc. can be explained as wrong without jumping to your ridiculous conclusion.
Here is what you don't get. My entire claim is that people who download these pictures are lazy scared peeping Toms. Morally, they are no different than a peeping Tom. If they could easily watch women naked and guarantee they won't get caught while breaking their privacy, they'd do it. There is no sense of morality holding them back from peeping, only the risk and effort it involves. And in my book, if all that keeps you from committing acts like that are the consequences, you are no different than those who don't care about the consequences.

The argument of making women feel threatened has no place here. It is a comets tangent.
 
This is only tangentially related to the topic at hand, but I'm going to say it because I've read a couple replies think some people don't actually know it.

And celebrity sex tape that is commercially released wasn't leaked. Period. Ever. You know how I know that? Because in general, to sell it you have to have releases from everyone on camera. And more to the point, since the mid 90s you actually have to have proof on record that anyone appearing in a commercially produced adult video is over the age of 18. And by proof, I mean things like photocopied drivers licenses or birth certificates. So while the Pam and Tommy tape may have originally been stolen when it was sold to the production company, they fully agreed to allowing it to be sold by said production company once they got their hands on it. Same with Paris Hilton, same with Kim Kardashian. Don't compare this to those, because it's not the same.



Yeah, the Marilyn Monroe shoot was just a nude professional photo shoot that she did as a model before she became famous. There was literally no expectation of privacy for that one. The Vanessa Williams Ms. America thing in the 80s was the same thing.

The Anderson/Lee tape was originally made available before they agreed to anything. They didn't come to an agreement and settlement until years after it had already gotten out and sold over the internet in the first place.
 
Oops, my bad. The people here are defending their right to look at and/or blast a load of baby-batter over these completely private images; but of course, in their breathless moments before climax they must have felt a great wave of empathy for the abused party.

Defending the right to perve on illegally obtained images of celebrities is morally the same as facilitating it, despite the ethical and legal distinction. These people are human beings, not your property.
 
I think a thread about celebrity skin pics full of people justifying their right to view them is the last place to make an argument about class. But maybe that's just me.

Oh? So depending on the topic, it's okay to call other gaf members "needle dicked little pissants"? Noted.
 
Here is what you don't get.

I understand you perfectly. (more insulting behavior from you)

The argument of making women feel threatened has no place here. It is a comets tangent.

What harm YOU might bring to someone to me is the most important part of judging the morality of something.

Most drunk drivers don't kill people; but we have no problem considering "the risk of killing people" a major aspect of why driving drunk is immoral.

Same thing with being a peeping Tom. Part of that decision to do that in life is your willingness to do something that might creep the fuck out of someone.. might cause them a ton of fear which could escalate into any number of things.

If you are willing to be a peeping Tom you are willing to potentially cause someone great harm; in this case psychological harm.

Downloading a photo is not the same; it is potentially something you could relate but equating the 2 things is hyperbolic.

Fair warning: I have little intention of continuing this with you as I don't feel like you are really a very constructive person to have a conversation with. Perhaps you'll understand it better if I put it this way: Your argument is really terrible and this conversation has been a pain in my ass. This isn't remotely interesting anymore because of your inability to not be a hyperbolic bore.
 
According to an article a lot of my friends on facebook are sharing, people who seek out these photos are violating these women's bodies, and if you share the photos you are guilty of assault.

I'm sure its been posted by now, but here's the link
 
Here is what you don't get. My entire claim is that people who download these pictures are lazy scared peeping Toms. Morally, they are no different than a peeping Tom. If they could easily watch women naked and guarantee they won't get caught while breaking their privacy, they'd do it. There is no sense of morality holding them back from peeping, only the risk and effort it involves. And in my book, if all that keeps you from committing acts like that are the consequences, you are no different than those who don't care about the consequences.

The argument of making women feel threatened has no place here. It is a comets tangent.

lol
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom