(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.
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
