It could be that religious conditioning kicking in in the back of your mind.

I find I can happily view nudes of people I know and it doesn't make me uncomfortable at all. And I don't feel uncomfortable sharing mine.

(August 1, 2017 at 11:56 pm)Industrial Lad Wrote: The idea of looking at stolen nudes just seems icky to me. And tbh the idea of seeing sexy pics of women I like and are friends or friendly with in A69 seems awkward to me.
Could be its the religious conditioning that just won't die or something!

I find that I can't get excited about young women that are "family friends", i.e. friends of my mother. That somehow seems too close, like they are sisters or something.

(August 1, 2017 at 10:49 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(August 1, 2017 at 10:24 pm)FFaith Wrote: When I said they gave permission to have the pictures taken, I meant to have the pictures created, not taken as in stolen.

Ok, then why does that matter? The issue is that they did not give consent to have their pictures posted publicly and viewed by anyone other than the person they sent it to.

---

(August 1, 2017 at 10:42 pm)pool the matey Wrote: CL, the photos were stolen by phishing.

Like for example, imagine you're at work someone calls you pretty urgently and tells you your house is on fire but you remember your pet is inside your house! So you rush home, open your front door and rushes in leaving your keys in the lock. The "hacker" takes this opportunity to make a duplicate of your key and leaves the original key as it was. You see there's no fire and figures someone mistook your phone number or something, so you go back to work. The "hacker" takes this opportunity to enter into your house with the duplicate key and then steal your pet!

I know how they were stolen. 

I think the analogy that Steel gave a few pages back was much more accurate of phishing than this.

Once the pictures are out there, the damage is done and they will exist on the internet being viewed forever. Me not viewing them is not going to make things any better for the actors, so I'm not going to pretend that I have the ability to help them in that situation.

Let's say that it was a famous porn star who had her private personal pictures stolen.
Would it be morally ok to view them? Or will you consider it theft of property? And hence immoral for a different reason? (even though you can readily watch porn vids of the same actress for free on other sites? (I use the term actress loosely)

Iggy's started acting up again. He's started asking confusing questions, did we forget to put restoril in his food again?  

I like exploring technicalities. Our legal system is built on them.

Especially when we introduce morality into any equation.
EG, We generally agree that harming others is immoral.
How is watching a photo of Lawrence's boobs on the net in the privacy of your own home without having any part of its procurement immoral?
Is she slightly more miserable now that one extra person has viewed it? Was she slightly happier just before I viewed it? (assuming I did).

If the answer is no, then how exactly is it immoral (by our definition)? In a biblical thought police way? No? How then?

You guys are sounding like God fearing theists on their high horses.

(logic and common sense must prevail)

(August 1, 2017 at 10:44 pm)Whateverist Wrote: Bullshit thread!  Where are all the nude photos?

https://www.google.com/search?q=foxes&so...41&dpr=1.5

(August 2, 2017 at 12:45 am)FFaith Wrote: Once the pictures are out there, the damage is done and they will exist on the internet being viewed forever. Me not viewing them is not going to make things any better for the actors, so I'm not going to pretend that I have the ability to help them in that situation.

---

(August 2, 2017 at 7:52 am)ignoramus Wrote: I like exploring technicalities. Our legal system is built on them.

Especially when we introduce morality into any equation.
EG, We generally agree that harming others is immoral.
How is watching a photo of Lawrence's boobs on the net in the privacy of your own home without having any part of its procurement immoral?
Is she slightly more miserable now that one extra person has viewed it? Was she slightly happier just before I viewed it? (assuming I did).

If the answer is no, then how exactly is it immoral (by our definition)? In a biblical thought police way? No? How then?

You guys are sounding like God fearing theists on their high horses.

(logic and common sense must prevail)

---

Sweet. So then pedophiles who simply view pictures of children being raped---they don't steal them, don't pay for them, just view them on a site---should not be held accountable, by this logic.

Women =/= Children, that's a bad comparison but I get your point. So what are the internet people supposed to do? Companies won't be willing to take down pictures which are bringing in traffic, besides that probably goes against their policy. Then what? We could lecture people enough times to make them feel guilty about looking at these naked pictures..

(August 2, 2017 at 9:54 am)SteelCurtain Wrote:

(August 2, 2017 at 12:45 am)FFaith Wrote: Once the pictures are out there, the damage is done and they will exist on the internet being viewed forever. Me not viewing them is not going to make things any better for the actors, so I'm not going to pretend that I have the ability to help them in that situation.

---

(August 2, 2017 at 7:52 am)ignoramus Wrote: I like exploring technicalities. Our legal system is built on them.

Especially when we introduce morality into any equation.
EG, We generally agree that harming others is immoral.
How is watching a photo of Lawrence's boobs on the net in the privacy of your own home without having any part of its procurement immoral?
Is she slightly more miserable now that one extra person has viewed it? Was she slightly happier just before I viewed it? (assuming I did).

If the answer is no, then how exactly is it immoral (by our definition)? In a biblical thought police way? No? How then?

You guys are sounding like God fearing theists on their high horses.

(logic and common sense must prevail)

---

Sweet. So then pedophiles who simply view pictures of children being raped---they don't steal them, don't pay for them, just view them on a site---should not be held accountable, by this logic.

The different is the way it reflects on a persons character.

One person is at least curious and at most sexually gratified by the rape of children, the other is curious about what a famous person looks nude, or at worst masturbating over it.

I personally have very little concern over the issue of theft, hacking or what consent the child has or hasn't given for people to view the images of them being raped, the concern id have is of the rape itself and people who are curious about raping children.

Being concerned over the images being hacked, consent on if the images can be used in relation to child porn is a bit like being concerned over a terrorist truck driver parking in a disabled spot before plowing into a group of people.