No one video taped anything, it was broadcasted. ( It"s semantics, yes i know) I think there is a big difference between something that is forever, and something that was done as a joke once, that will never be seen again.Lefazz said:
Girls who broke your heart thread
- Thread starter Aychamo BanBan
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Designz_foh
shitlord
- 0
- 0
People who think aychamo"s mentality is good for any sort of relationship have serious fixing to do! Of course, this forum is not the place to do it!
GrobbeeTrull2.0_foh
shitlord
- 0
- 2
Sharmai_foh
shitlord
- 0
- 0
I"m sorry let me put it in different words then. Something which is objectionable to chicago is not to new yorkers. Something which is objectionable to Chille is not to the US.Lefazz said:That"s what we"re talking about, though: TODAY"s society. Not society in 300BC where it was perfectly acceptable to video tape yourself having sex with an unknowing partner.
Something which is objectionable 5 minutes from now may not be 10 minutes from now. Got it now? Its a sliding fucking scale on morals. Its whatever the moral majority decide at that particular time. Its not right, its group think.
Hey when the last time you sped? Guess what. You just broke the law. sociopath.
Aw hell who am I kidding. If you don"t understand the flaws inherent in using the baseline definition of sociopath let alone any clinical mental diagnosed disorder then you don"t deserve to be using the term even in casual conversation. Its to complicated for you.
Lefazz_foh
shitlord
- 0
- 0
It depends on what it is, but the lack of empathy towards others can translate into cruelty to others -- which, while most of you will disagree with me here I"m sure, I would definitely say that what he is doing is a form of cruelty.GrobbeeTrull2.0 said:You"re crazy.
Lacking empathy isn"t anything related to right and wrong at all.
Sharmai_foh
shitlord
- 0
- 0
The baseline definition of both Anti-Social and Sociopath would define each and every single person in the US at some point as one or the other or both. In that sense it is a useless and fucking stupid definition. That is why it is not taken at its baseline definition. That is why it takes massive amounts of context.GrobbeeTrull2.0 said:You"re crazy.
Lacking empathy isn"t anything related to right and wrong at all. And in reference to your claim that he"s not anti-social, if he"s doing anything AGAINST SOCIETY"S STANDARDS, it is by definition ANTI SOCIAL. The stigma attached is fine, whatever, but it doesn"t make it any less true. You can"t possibly argue semantics on this.
You are being sarcastic, but yes, i know i am right. Something that was shown once to 15-20 people, is different than something that pops up 1-100 years from now, when you have your shit together, and hell may have hit a streak of success, and either blackmailed for it, it"s leaked to some kind of market for those type of tapes, or many possible outcomes of a sex tape destroying the relationships with people you actually know, and not just random internet people, most of which you will never speak anonymously online with ever again.GrobbeeTrull2.0 said:You"re right. One video tape versus a live audience is surely less viewers.
At least the most the other posters have valid points, you are just being a moron.
I really can"t grasp how most of you still can"t agree with the logic in Sharmi"s argument, it"s more or less undebatable. Or at least i can"t think of a proper counter argument, and sure as fuck, none of you have presented one.Sharmai said:The baseline definition of both Anti-Social and Sociopath would define each and every single person in the US at some point as one or the other or both. In that sense it is a useless and fucking stupid definition. That is why it is not taken at its baseline definition. That is why it takes massive amounts of context.
Yes. speeding is as morally objectionable as broadcasting someone during an intimate personal act.Sharmai said:I"m sorry let me put it in different words then. Something which is objectionable to chicago is not to new yorkers. Something which is objectionable to Chille is not to the US.
Something which is objectionable 5 minutes from now may not be 10 minutes from now. Got it now? Its a sliding fucking scale on morals. Its whatever the moral majority decide at that particular time. Its not right, its group think.
Hey when the last time you sped? Guess what. You just broke the law. sociopath.
Aw hell who am I kidding. If you don"t understand the flaws inherent in using the baseline definition of sociopath let alone any clinical mental diagnosed disorder then you don"t deserve to be using the term even in casual conversation. Its to complicated for you.
We"ll stick a camera in your bedroom/bathroom for a little while, then you tell us how you feel about it when we tell you a year from now. Ok?
heres the winning question guys....
if what he was going to do was so OK.....
why didnt he tell them about it ahead of time? hmmmmm.
Lefazz_foh
shitlord
- 0
- 0
What are we even debating? I THOUGHT it was if "having sex with random people while they are being video tapped without their consent is morally wrong?"Lowk said:I really can"t grasp how most of you still can"t agree with the logic in Sharmi"s argument, it"s more or less undebatable. Or at least i can"t think of a proper counter argument, and sure as fuck, none of you have presented one.
I can"t fathom anyone thinking that"s completely acceptable behavior.
yes, because theres not a possibility that a viewer archived the footage.Lowk said:You are being sarcastic, but yes, i know i am right. Something that was shown once to 15-20 people, is different than something that pops up 1-100 years from now, when you have your shit together, and hell may have hit a streak of success, and either blackmailed for it, it"s leaked to some kind of market for those type of tapes, or many possible outcomes of a sex tape destroying the relationships with people you actually know, and not just random internet people, most of which you will never speak anonymously online with ever again.
At least the most the other posters have valid points, you are just being a moron.
and the fact that it was only streamed live for 20 people made it less of a personal violation.
hell, we should just tell women that were only raped by one man instead of tag teamed that its not that bad because it wasnt recorded and was only 1 instead of multiple people.
anyway you cut it, if you cant understand that this was a deep violation of trust and yes, the use of the word violation is entirely appropriate, then nothing on an internet message board will be able to make you understand how fucked up you are. period.
Sharmai_foh
shitlord
- 0
- 0
Ah so then you agree speeding makes you a sociopath? No? of course not.. But yet it fits the definition. That"s the problem with morale based definitions.Etoille said:Yes. speeding is as morally objectionable as broadcasting someone during an intimate personal act.
We"ll stick a camera in your bedroom/bathroom for a little while, then you tell us how you feel about it when we tell you a year from now. Ok?
heres the winning question guys....
if what he was going to do was so OK.....
why didnt he tell them about it ahead of time? hmmmmm.
WoW thats a bad counterargument. Not telling still does not make him a sociopath.
sharmai i finally understand your deep roots thing now.Sharmai said:Ah so then you agree speeding makes you a sociopath? No? of course not.. But yet it fits the definition. That"s the problem with morale based definitions.
WoW thats a bad counterargument. Not telling still does not make him a sociopath.
in your world any judgment is based on moral (NOT MORALE) reasons and that makes it ok for anyone to do what they want because we all have different morals and what society would term to be bad now doesn"t matter because in the future it might not be.
totally makes sense. thank you for clearing that up.
if you go back a few pages, i already said, it was definitely wrong, however, i do think it more awesome/hilarious....Etoille said:yes, because theres not a possibility that a viewer archived the footage.
and the fact that it was only streamed live for 20 people made it less of a personal violation.
hell, we should just tell women that were only raped by one man instead of tag teamed that its not that bad because it wasnt recorded and was only 1 instead of multiple people.
anyway you cut it, if you cant understand that this was a deep violation of trust and yes, the use of the word violation is entirely appropriate, then nothing on an internet message board will be able to make you understand how fucked up you are. period.
this i think, is a completely different topic in the next lines.....
Because the relationships between him and these girls existed only for the sex that went on, i don"t see a serious foul really existing there, sure it was a minor abuse of trust, but other than that.
If i remember correctly, the sex with the randoms ended, when the relationship with the girl whose pics were posted got serious. That is the only person if i were in his shoes, i would have felt guilty about doing any of these antics.
Sharmai_foh
shitlord
- 0
- 0
Violation of trust (even assuming he knew) does not make a person a sociopath either. Her opening her legs to him is on her for trusting as much. IT DOES NOT absolve him of that trust violation but IT ALSO DOES NOT absolve her for trusting him to not video tape her.
No I"m not going to argue who is more guilty in this case its irrelevant to me. She could have just as easily so no sex or lets do it at my place. And yes there are ways around that to. she could have waited a year before sex to make sure who she was going to be with and could trust him and yes he could have still taped her.
trust is just that a bond between two people. Breaking trust does not make a person a sociopath... Just maybe an inconsiderate bastard.
No I"m not going to argue who is more guilty in this case its irrelevant to me. She could have just as easily so no sex or lets do it at my place. And yes there are ways around that to. she could have waited a year before sex to make sure who she was going to be with and could trust him and yes he could have still taped her.
trust is just that a bond between two people. Breaking trust does not make a person a sociopath... Just maybe an inconsiderate bastard.
The debate was labeling Aych with having sociaopathic behavior.Lefazz said:What are we even debating? I THOUGHT it was if "having sex with random people while they are being video tapped without their consent is morally wrong?"
I can"t fathom anyone thinking that"s completely acceptable behavior.
yup...Sharmai said:trust is just that a bond between two people. Breaking trust does not make a person a sociopath... Just maybe an inconsiderate bastard.
great. blaming the victim for rape is the logical next step. "she started making out with him, took off her clothes, but when she decided she didnt want to go through with it, it was just as much her fault".Sharmai said:Violation of trust (even assuming he knew) does not make a person a sociopath either. Her opening her legs to him is on her for trusting as much. IT DOES NOT absolve him of that trust violation but IT ALSO DOES NOT absolve her for trusting him to not video tape her.
No I"m not going to argue who is more guilty in this case its irrelevant to me. She could have just as easily so no sex or lets do it at my place. And yes there are ways around that to. she could have waited a year before sex to make sure who she was going to be with and could trust him and yes he could have still taped her.
trust is just that a bond between two people. Breaking trust does not make a person a sociopath... Just maybe an inconsiderate bastard.
wow. yep its all the girls fault for being a whore. just like it was the white kids fault for being white. got it. like i said i totally understand you now. no need to further explain yourself.
i wonder what barack obama would think of your response.
Sharmai_foh
shitlord
- 0
- 0
sigh.. fail. No actually I do think group morals are a necessity but that doesn"t make stupid ones any less stupid. for example a group moral (or law) which says you shouldn"t kill one another is a good thing. But another morale which defines another person as being a sociopath if they do absolutely any little thing even slightly against the norm would be defined as a stupid one.Etoille said:sharmai i finally understand your deep roots thing now.
in your world any judgment is based on moral (NOT MORALE) reasons and that makes it ok for anyone to do what they want because we all have different morals and what society would term to be bad now doesn"t matter because in the future it might not be.
totally makes sense. thank you for clearing that up.
I could go into more detail but really its not necessary. If you can"t understand the difference between laws and clinical diagnosed mental disorders then your then one with problems.
Vatoreus Malfost_sl
shitlord
- 228
- 1
you fucking fast ass ninja editor. I had you quoted when it was still psychopath!Lowk said:The debate was labeling Aych with having sociaopathic behavior.
yup...
Sharmai_foh
shitlord
- 0
- 0
No No its not the logical next step. Its not. I"m not going to argue this with you. Rape is simply not comparable or even similar to being videotape without permission during sex. No No its not. NoEtoille said:great. blaming the victim for rape is the logical next step. "she started making out with him, took off her clothes, but when she decided she didnt want to go through with it, it was just as much her fault".
wow. yep its all the girls fault for being a whore. just like it was the white kids fault for being white. got it. like i said i totally understand you now. no need to further explain yourself.
No it is not. No.
Share: