Was it prudent of Jennifer Lawrence to take pictures of herself nude in the first place? Y/N?

[Lightknight]

Maximumble did the perfect response to all the bullshit

The guy getting kicked in the balls was responsible for being a dick.

I don't think the people on the other side are saying that it's just the nature of having breasts and wearing clothes like the cartoon strawmans. They're asking whether or not her being unwise with her pictures should be recognized as culpable in the crime committed against them. This isn't someone looking up her dress in public. This is her making compromising pictures and storing them publicly. That was unwise, that's different than just having breasts and keeping clothes on. However, doing something unwise is a separate issue. It is a distinct problem. Having money in your wallet in a bad neighborhood doesn't mean you're to blame for getting mugged. That's all on the mugger. But having all of your money in your wallet at one time? That's something that you did that wasn't smart. You'd be responsible for the amount of money you had available to lose. But, still not responsible for the thief's actions. This is a problem that Jennifer could have avoided without doing this, that is true. We do need to discuss this because people do need to be educated that the internet is a bad neighborhood that is lined with muggers. Famous people are the guys in suits that stand out as desirable targets.

This can also be a subjective line, actually. Everyone's pretending like they've got some objective truth or monopoly on what is right and what is wrong, but there's a sliding scale of when a victim did something dumb and got what would be expected vs someone just being victimized. Yes, humans are sentient and are responsible for their own actions. But there is a difference between a person getting attacked by a tiger and a person with steaks tied around their waist getting attacked by a tiger. Not that Jennifer had nude pictures around her waist. That's not the point. I'm talking generally on the philosophical question on whether or not a victim can ever share blame.

Look, a Jewelry shop isn't to blame for getting robbed just because they had jewels behind glass. You aren't responsible for being mugged just because you walked down the street. A girl who had a ruffie sneaked into a drink is not responsible for what happens to her. But a criminal who keeps incriminating evidence is at fault for being caught with it.

But a guy walking down a bad street waving a roll of hundreds does is doing something wrong.

But that's not what Jennifer did here. She had files in a private location. This is someone breaking into a storage unit in a storage facility and stealing the stuff in there. The storage facility and the thief are the only responsible parties here. It was unwise of her to have the pictures online at all. Yes. But that's not as obvious as waving $100s around a bad street. You can't ask everyone to be a security expert. Especially not when they're trusting storage facilities to be the experts there.

 

[144_v1legacy]

How about "we" stop judging others for what they do in private? That would be prudent.

How about we continue judging celebrities for what they do in private? That's much more fun.

OT., like the above alcohol example, maybe it wasn't prudent, but it's not something she can be blamed for if the pictures' online existence is the result of privacy breach. I don't blame the people who look at the pictures either - I blame only the people who made it available to begin with. You can't blame the people who look at porn for looking at porn. And this is why it might not have been prudent - there are some celebrities to whom this will never be a potential issue, because they simply don't have naked photos taken.

 

[Something Amyss]

What? How do you end up in a conversation that ends pleasantly with the acceptance of differing views and I end up with this mess? It's not fair, you're better at this sort of thing than I am. I just get angry and call people dicks, you just slowly make them reveal that they are in fact dicks.

You must have missed the thirty or so people who have basically ragequit arguments with me of late.

Somewhere on the internet, I'm pretty sure someone's comparing me to Hitler right now.

There's definitely added risk associated with this kind of convenience.

All I can say is that accessibility cuts both ways. I think there's going to be a learning period with Cloud tech just as there was when multimedia was new, and enabled otherwise benign software to be used for ill intent.

Oh, absolutely, I just think that the ubiquity of it is one of those things that means people don't even think about it as a whole. I mean, I have a Dropbox account, but pretty much the only thing I have stored on it is my RPG eBooks so I can easily access them across all my advices. If someone cracks my account they can commit an act of piracy, yes, but they can't secure any private information (especially since the books are watermarked to the same account used for the Dropbox account). But people like "fire it and forget it" technology, stuff that "just works," stuff that's supposedly idiot proof. And this is why, nearing 20 years after the pop culture movie Hackers, people still make their password "password" or such unless specifically MADE TO by a password system that requires, say, a number.

Huh. It's weird. This whole thing dovetails with a post I just made about why I think consoles aren't likely to die.

Aaaaanyway....

It's even worse because some of the people involved are still teenagers, and teenagers are not known for the best evaluation and decision-making skills. Hell, I guess a couple of them may have been minors at the time? I don't know, I came in on all this late because I mostly heard all the "they were asking for it" rationalising that was going around, so I don't even know which celebrities were involved besides Jennifer Lawrence, because she was used as an example on The Daily Show and Colbert Report both, I think. And because I know who she is. I don't know the full age range, but it's especially unsurprising that people in their teens and early 20s aren't necessarily thinking.

 

[144_v1legacy]

I don't blame the people who look at the pictures either - I blame only the people who made it available to begin with. You can't blame the people who look at porn for looking at porn.

You can and should condemn people that view those photos. They were stolen. It is public knowledge the victims do not wish their images to be seen. That's very simple. In fact, it's a crime in at least one state in the U.S. that I know of, to share pornographic images of someone against heir will.

If someone is enough of a piece of human shit to look, call them out on it. Let them know they are lonely, pathetic and deserve to face charges if you live in a state nice enough to have them. It's our job as a society to let people know what is and is not ok. This sick, disgusting crap is not ok.

The implication in that statement is that while some states think it's a crime, others think it's a-ok. Like the death penalty, or de-clawing cats. I have yet to look at Jennifer naked, but I simply don't care enough when the entire world of porn already exists for me. Your logic, though, is akin to the logic people have towards watching copyrighted material on youtube. I say the people at fault are those who upload it, but once it's there, it's immoral to condemn people for watching it.

Nintendo demanded Youtube remove certain LP videos at one point, due to their copyright status (I think it was a dick move), but I wonder: should they have been annoyed at the person doing the uploading, the company Youtube, or the hundreds of thousands of viewers? I say that it's just inefficient to be mad at them, even if they are doing the wrong thing.

If you think these people looking at naked photos are immoral, you can call them out, but it won't solve the problem, and you'll have a lot of calling out to do. It'll take decades and no one will listen to you. A faster way to prevent this sort of thing from happening is to find a better way to keep the pictures from reaching an audience in the first place.

Your attitude reminds me of the "call out the pedophiles" attitude. But there are a lot of difference between the scenarios, and I don't think the same solution works for both. Over the course of this conversation, I became interested in Jennifer Lawrence naked. Because guys are interested in naked girls, especially attractive ones, especially ones they know. You are calling anyone who is interested in looking at Jennifer Lawrence naked a piece of human shit, but I personally reserve that for harsher crimes. Like serial killing and rape.

 

[144_v1legacy]

Over the course of this conversation, I became interested in Jennifer Lawrence naked.

Over the course of a thread detailing how women had their private lives hacked into and their intimate affects stolen, you became interested in seeing nude women against their will? I find that beyond revolting.

I would suggest seeking help. That's a rather grotesque issue -- not to mention illegal, depending on where you live.

That's a really cute attempt to ignore a debate and instead insult a debater.

What this means is that you have a lot to learn about a large percentage of the human population. I get that you want to defend Jennifer Lawrence, and I suppose that's admirable, but spite will get you nowhere. To anyone seeing this thread, observe how "Rocket Girl" doesn't draw a line between curiosity and immorality. And is also unable to understand the concept of the hypothetical. There are a lot of people who will self-righteously and ignorantly claim that they think I am a minority, and should seek help, when the truth is that way too many people are looking at Jennifer Lawrence naked for me to be the unusual specimen should I not be curious.

And then you quote snippets of a longer argument (one I took a long time to carefully craft) in the hopes that if you can maybe paint a bad picture of me instead of debating points I raised then you can seem in the right. But it isn't true. Go back and read my post again. I had been nothing but polite to you, and you've been nothing but vitriolic towards me for it.

 

[AkaDad]

You are calling anyone who is interested in looking at Jennifer Lawrence naked a piece of human shit, but I personally reserve that for harsher crimes. Like serial killing and rape.

Interesting that you cast aspersions on rape - the sexual violation of another human being - while participating in and condoning the sexual violation of another human being.

I'm a man. I like women. Naked ones attract me. But I have exactly zero interest in seeing the naked body of a woman who did not consent.

Anyone who IS interested in seeing the naked body of a woman who did not consent is interested in committing an act of sexual violence against that woman. It doesn't matter if they originally stole the pictures or not. They are that woman's sexual abusers. They are committing sexual crimes against her.

They are, in a very real way, her rapists, exerting sexual power over her body that they have no right to.

In short, they are pieces of shit. I wouldn't even dignify them with the term 'human'.

Sub-human shit.

And if you go looking for those pictures, you are too.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that comparing invasion of privacy to rape is the most ridiculous thing I read today.

 

[144_v1legacy]

Over the course of this conversation, I became interested in Jennifer Lawrence naked.

Over the course of a thread detailing how women had their private lives hacked into and their intimate affects stolen, you became interested in seeing nude women against their will? I find that beyond revolting.

I would suggest seeking help. That's a rather grotesque issue -- not to mention illegal, depending on where you live.

That's a really cute attempt to ignore a debate and instead insult a debater.

What this means is that you have a lot to learn about a large percentage of the human population. I get that you want to defend Jennifer Lawrence, and I suppose that's admirable, but spite will get you nowhere. To anyone seeing this thread, observe how "Rocket Girl" doesn't draw a line between curiosity and immorality. And is also unable to understand the concept of the hypothetical. There are a lot of people who will self-righteously and ignorantly claim that they think I am a minority, and should seek help, when the truth is that way too many people are looking at Jennifer Lawrence naked for me to be the unusual specimen should I not be curious.

And then you quote snippets of a longer argument (one I took a long time to carefully craft) in the hopes that if you can maybe paint a bad picture of me instead of debating points I raised then you can seem in the right. But it isn't true. Go back and read my post again. I had been nothing but polite to you, and you've been nothing but vitriolic towards me for it.

Curious to violate a woman's rights to her body? Dude. I wouldn't keep leaving comments like that.

Again, you know perfectly well that you are taking my statements out of context with the intentions of painting a negative picture of a combatant against whom you have no more valid points to make. It's like you think you're going to get an award for saying it's bad people are looking at photos of a girl against her will. Which, by the way, I agree with. It's a darn shame. But a lot of guys think she's hot, and you can't fault them for wanting to see her naked. You can fault the thief.

Another person above quoted me and then equated curiosity with rape. I personally think it would be worse to rape Jennifer Lawrence than to want to see her naked pictures. I don't equate those two. I don't think they're even close.

We're here on a videogame website. Tell me: have you played a game in which you kill hundred of living things? Is that just as bad as actually doing it in real life?

Learn to step out of your black-and-white boundaries. Or don't, and continue to quote snippets of this argument out of context. You still didn't address most of my first response to you.

 

[MeatMachine]

My god, it's the year 2014, and people are surprised that digital photographs, especially those of highly sought-after people are DIFFICULT to keep out of the public? I get that they were personal nudies, but how could the thought have not crossed your mind that 1 slip-up means the whole world will see it in hours?

No, I'm not suggesting they deserved it so much as pointing out the inevitability of the situation. Good luck with damage control.

 

[Doclector]

Neither. To suggest it wasn't prudent suggests she shouldn't be able to decide to do whatever she damn well pleases with her photos. To suggest it was suggests that she somehow SHOULD have taken them, like she had a duty to.

Fact is, whatever she did with a supposedly private service is her business. Of course, there's always the risk of hacking, but that's no reason to say that she shouldn't be allowed to send people pictures of herself, nude or otherwise, that she felt were going to remain private.

 

[144_v1legacy]

Over the course of this conversation, I became interested in Jennifer Lawrence naked.

Over the course of a thread detailing how women had their private lives hacked into and their intimate affects stolen, you became interested in seeing nude women against their will? I find that beyond revolting.

I would suggest seeking help. That's a rather grotesque issue -- not to mention illegal, depending on where you live.

That's a really cute attempt to ignore a debate and instead insult a debater.

What this means is that you have a lot to learn about a large percentage of the human population. I get that you want to defend Jennifer Lawrence, and I suppose that's admirable, but spite will get you nowhere. To anyone seeing this thread, observe how "Rocket Girl" doesn't draw a line between curiosity and immorality. And is also unable to understand the concept of the hypothetical. There are a lot of people who will self-righteously and ignorantly claim that they think I am a minority, and should seek help, when the truth is that way too many people are looking at Jennifer Lawrence naked for me to be the unusual specimen should I not be curious.

And then you quote snippets of a longer argument (one I took a long time to carefully craft) in the hopes that if you can maybe paint a bad picture of me instead of debating points I raised then you can seem in the right. But it isn't true. Go back and read my post again. I had been nothing but polite to you, and you've been nothing but vitriolic towards me for it.

Curious to violate a woman's rights to her body? Dude. I wouldn't keep leaving comments like that.

Again, you know perfectly well that you are taking my statements out of context with the intentions of painting a negative picture of a combatant against whom you have no more valid points to make. It's like you think you're going to get an award for saying it's bad people are looking at photos of a girl against her will. Which, by the way, I agree with. It's a darn shame. But a lot of guys think she's hot, and you can't fault them for wanting to see her naked. You can fault the thief.

Another person above quoted me and then equated curiosity with rape. I personally think it would be worse to rape Jennifer Lawrence than to want to see her naked pictures. I don't equate those two. I don't think they're even close.

We're here on a videogame website. Tell me: have you played a game in which you kill hundred of living things? Is that just as bad as actually doing it in real life?

Learn to step out of your black-and-white boundaries. Or don't, and continue to quote snippets of this argument out of context. You still didn't address most of my first response to you.

You keep saying you are curious to see the stolen image of a naked woman without her consent and indeed against her will. What do you want me to do? 'Cause that's rather revolting -- and illegal. I'm not going to just say ok, that's fine the, because you say you're "curious." I suppose looking at nude children because you're "curious" is a-ok? Rationalize it to yourself however you need to. I'll stick to finding the violation of another human's rights to her own body to be repulsive.

The gaming community has a long, long way to go with the way it views and treats women. Ick.

My "curiosity" statement was more of a hypothetical to describe the mind of the consumer of such photos to someone (you) who clearly doesn't understand it. It was sadly taken at face value. Alas, I'll try to blame the difficulty of conveying tone through the internet, and not your inability to pick up on subtlety.

The reason the direction of this argument is such a shame is because it didn't need to be this way. Try, try really hard, to reread my initial post to you (the one with the YouTube references and stuff) as though I was sitting in a couch in a lounge room and so were you. Maybe a college scenario. I made a concerted effort in that post to not insult you or your beliefs, and went as far as to call your position admirable later, and thought that your methodology was flawed for a number of analogous reasons, and that maybe a different tactic was needed for the prevention of such cases.

And your response? a literal misinterpretation. I get that a lot of people on forums are callous, and maybe it's your default to prepare for that, but considering your newness to the forum, I'll say that some people aren't like that. Try not to be in fight mode with everyone. Even now I'm trying to hold back and remain civil. Can you maybe take a breath, and reinterpret my statements as internet hypotheticals, rather than admissions of personality? Because that's what they are. That's the beauty of anonymity in internet forums.

 

[giles]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that comparing invasion of privacy to rape is the most ridiculous thing I read today.

Well, while it certainly is the most ridiculous thing I read today, I've seen even more insane attempts to broaden the definition of rape to the most ridiculous things in the past few weeks.
Guess we can thank the radfem invasion of gaming for that.

you are curious to violate a woman's rights.

Your word games are getting ridiculous. He felt an urge to see her naked body because it's hard wired into heterosexual males to do so. This is not the same as a desire to "violate a woman's rights".
Precisely because desires are beyond control, you can't judge a person based on them. You can only judge him on his actions and he didn't say he looked at the pictures as far as I can tell (I didn't read the whole ridiculous spiel you two are having too closely, sorry).
Not that I would argue that looking at the pictures is some kind of crime against humanity.

 

[Ishigami]

I don't really care...

I'm more interested in the media hypocrisy. They are apparently okay voting on a celebrity dicks but outraged at leaked boobs and pussies...
At least when some random hacker does it? it is okay again if some ?wardrobe malfunction? happens or someone gets out of car ?wrong? then it is okay in case a paparazzi sells them these photos or even better if it happens to be free as its captured by their own people?

Sure?

 

[MeatMachine]

Maximumble did the perfect response to all the bullshit

Having testicles is not a stupid, poorly-planned decision that leaves you totally vulnerable to an already existing population that wants to take advantage of you.

Deciding to achieving celebrity status and uploading nude photographs of yourself onto a poorly secured cloud is.

Neither person DESERVES what happened to them, but that's just not a fitting parable to juxtapose.