Was it prudent of Jennifer Lawrence to take pictures of herself nude in the first place? Y/N?
- Thread starter otakon17
- Start date
Recommended Videos
So I guess credit card fraud and identity theft is the victim not being prudent. Don't they know using their debit card anywhere opens themselves up to fraud. How many times do Sony and Target have to be hacked before people stop trusting companies with their sensitive financial information.ForumSafari said:
Was it prudent of Jennifer Lawrence to take those pictures? Probably not. Was it prudent of me to stack a sandwich ten centimetres higher than usual with ham? Also probably not. I don't think 'prudence' has much to do with anything in real life. Is Lawrence a political figure who risks demonisation or a career collapse from this event? No. Did anybody have anything to gain by seeking these out and leaking them?
Aside from high fives.
No, they did not. Jennifer Lawrence, and the other affected celebrities, are entitled to their privacy just as anybody else and honestly, believing that they were somehow at a constant risk of having their private property leaked is nothing short of paranoia. It is not their fault this happened anymore than it is my fault the Saudi Arab pig-farming industry is in dire straits.
But the question is apparently not "Is this Jennifer Lawrence's fault", it's "Was it prudent of Jennifer Lawrence to take pictures of herself nude in the first place?" and now I think this is an exceptionally leading question. Prudence requires pragmatism. There aren't many 'pragmatic' reasons to have private nudes, so naturally it's not prudent to have them. It's also not prudent to butter your bread or own more than two sets of clothes. Those cost money, and you're better saving money. Sure, you might want butter on your bread, but I wouldn't call it 'prudent'.
So OP, not only are you a victim-blamer, your attempt at a politically-correct title was leading and you should change it to something more honest, like "Is Jennifer Lawrence a dirty raging prostitute who deserves everything she's getting, because I certainly think so."
Aside from high fives.
No, they did not. Jennifer Lawrence, and the other affected celebrities, are entitled to their privacy just as anybody else and honestly, believing that they were somehow at a constant risk of having their private property leaked is nothing short of paranoia. It is not their fault this happened anymore than it is my fault the Saudi Arab pig-farming industry is in dire straits.
But the question is apparently not "Is this Jennifer Lawrence's fault", it's "Was it prudent of Jennifer Lawrence to take pictures of herself nude in the first place?" and now I think this is an exceptionally leading question. Prudence requires pragmatism. There aren't many 'pragmatic' reasons to have private nudes, so naturally it's not prudent to have them. It's also not prudent to butter your bread or own more than two sets of clothes. Those cost money, and you're better saving money. Sure, you might want butter on your bread, but I wouldn't call it 'prudent'.
So OP, not only are you a victim-blamer, your attempt at a politically-correct title was leading and you should change it to something more honest, like "Is Jennifer Lawrence a dirty raging prostitute who deserves everything she's getting, because I certainly think so."
I have never understood the fascination with seeing naked pictures of famous people. Movies boobs I get, but those are a totally different animal XDZhukov said:
OT: She can take nude photos if she wants and no one has the right to hack into her shit and take them. If she's guilty of anything here it was in trusting the security of a cloud database, but I think this is more a case of lesson learned than anything else.
Well the only real issue is people freaking out over nudity... news flash, that is what people all are naturally, walking around in clothing is just playing pretend.
But we somehow created a world where our natural form is no longer accepted, we took it so far as to make it illegal to even be seen in public. Which is exactly what fuels the madness that comes with leaked naudes and the madmen who will stop at nothing to obtain them.
But a warning before the time comes when we can be reasonable about this subject: Having your own nudes on the internet no matter how secure is like putting a bag of coke with your address in an office desk believing nothing could ever happen. Sure as long as no one checks you are fine, but the moment they do no one will ever shut up about it again.
But we somehow created a world where our natural form is no longer accepted, we took it so far as to make it illegal to even be seen in public. Which is exactly what fuels the madness that comes with leaked naudes and the madmen who will stop at nothing to obtain them.
But a warning before the time comes when we can be reasonable about this subject: Having your own nudes on the internet no matter how secure is like putting a bag of coke with your address in an office desk believing nothing could ever happen. Sure as long as no one checks you are fine, but the moment they do no one will ever shut up about it again.
Foolish to store nude pictures on a cloud device. Not at fault they were released to the public.
Then again I live by the mindset that if you don't want something of you being seen, don't record it. If you want to show your bits and bobs to one specific person, then show it to that one specific person.
Then again I live by the mindset that if you don't want something of you being seen, don't record it. If you want to show your bits and bobs to one specific person, then show it to that one specific person.
You know what, I'm not going to argue this anymore. I'm obviously beaten to a point. I wrote another message here but I really felt stupid for doing that so,
condolences to victims, hope someone uses this to explain their friends that it's not a smart thing to store sensitive data online without properly protecting them.
condolences to victims, hope someone uses this to explain their friends that it's not a smart thing to store sensitive data online without properly protecting them.
As recent hacking cases, this applies to everything. You can't even use a card at Target without putting your personal financial information at risk.carnex said:
I'm sure many of the same people insisting these women should know better than trusting their nude photos with Apple have no problem letting Apple have their credit card info so they can easily buy the latest Metallica album.
Prudent? Perhaps not.
But drinking alcohol isn't prudent. Taking a spur of the moment vacation isn't prudent. Pre ordering a video game isn't prudent.
I get what you are talking about. Risk mitigation. But I have a hard time faulting her for wanting to have some fun.
But drinking alcohol isn't prudent. Taking a spur of the moment vacation isn't prudent. Pre ordering a video game isn't prudent.
I get what you are talking about. Risk mitigation. But I have a hard time faulting her for wanting to have some fun.
The guy getting kicked in the balls was responsible for being a dick.mitchell271 said:
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.
How about we continue judging celebrities for what they do in private? That's much more fun.AkaDad said:
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.
You must have missed the thirty or so people who have basically ragequit arguments with me of late.Spot1990 said:
Somewhere on the internet, I'm pretty sure someone's comparing me to Hitler right now.
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.Atmos Duality said:
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.
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.Rocket Girl said:
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.
That's a really cute attempt to ignore a debate and instead insult a debater.Rocket Girl said:
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.
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.Rocket Girl said:
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.
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.
No, I'm not suggesting they deserved it so much as pointing out the inevitability of the situation. Good luck with damage control.
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.
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.
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.Rocket Girl said:
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.