(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.
If millions of pedophiles choose not to watch child porn for fear of getting caught, less videos get made and therefore you have less victims. If millions of people decide not to look at the nude celebrity leaks because they think it's wrong, what does that really accomplish? It only takes a few people to do all of these celebrity leaks, right?
Another thing to consider is that these celeb leaks are normalizing nudity and sex a bit more. People in the future who have pics leaked may feel better about it because they may be thinking, almost everyone has pics leaked so it's not that big of a deal. It's not all negative if these leaks help people feel less shame over their own bodies and sex in the future.
