Poll of the Day > Demi Lovato's nudes were leaked

(+) Yeah! (+)

Jen0125 posted...

Because it's not immoral to shame degenerates who look at photos posted online without consent.

How sure are you about all the porn you've watched? Chances are if you've consumed a lot of porn, you've watched something that someone didnt consent to being posted. Or possibly something that someone was intimidated or coerced into

So while we are here. Any actually good nudes leaked recently? I'm running out of content.

---

OhhhJa posted...

How sure are you about all the porn you've watched? Chances are if you've consumed a lot of porn, you've watched something that someone didnt consent to being posted. Or possibly something that someone was intimidated or coerced into

I've already commented on this. There's a difference between knowingly consuming something you know has been posted without consent and consuming something you have no idea is posted without consent. It's not the gotcha question you think it is.

---

Jen0125 posted...

I've already commented on this. There's a difference between knowingly consuming something you know has been posted without consent and consuming something you have no idea is posted without consent. It's not the gotcha question you think it is.

Except that you're also knowingly consuming something in which you absolutely know that you are going to come across the same thing that you're morally objecting to in this topic

I don't know if this was already posted, but...

I don't really see how it's bad to look at something that's already been posted online. The pics are on there, and people are going to look at them whether I look at them or not. Like, posting unwanted pics is definitely bad, but I really don't see the issue here unless you personally know the person.

@Jen0125
---

lihlih posted...

I don't know if this was already posted, but...

I don't really see how it's bad to look at something that's already been posted online. The pics are on there, and people are going to look at them whether I look at them or not. Like, posting unwanted pics is definitely bad, but I really don't see the issue here unless you personally know the person.

@Jen0125

You also cheated on your wife and impregnated another woman so

---

Jen0125 posted...

Because it's not immoral to shame degenerates who look at photos posted online without consent.

But it is immoral to shame people who are doing nothing wrong, which you are happily admitting to doing.

---

Jen0125 posted...

You also cheated on your wife and impregnated another woman so

Ah, so you're just going to pull a politician move and deflect because you have nothing to say. Ok, so you have nothing of value to say about it then.
---

lihlih posted...

Ah, so you're just going to pull a politician move and deflect because you have nothing to say. Ok, so you have nothing of value to say about it then.

She's not wrong that you're not exactly an authority on sexual morality.

---

adjl posted...

She's not wrong that you're not exactly an authority on sexual morality.

Except the marriage was a contract marriage, so what I did wasn't wrong at all. Also, this wasn't about if I'm wrong. She stated her opinion saying that consuming the pics are wrong. I stated my opinion, asking her why it was wrong, and she never got back to it, just deflected it like a politician who has nothing to say.
---

lihlih posted...

Except the marriage was a contract marriage, so what I did wasn't wrong at all.

Illegal and wrong are not the same thing.

---

Nichtcrawler X posted...

Illegal and wrong are not the same thing.

Except adultery isn't illegal in the state I was in.
---

lihlih posted...

Except adultery isn't illegal in the state I was in.

I meant that things can still be wrong, even if they are not illegal.

---

Nichtcrawler X posted...

I meant that things can still be wrong, even if they are not illegal.

How is it wrong for me to do what I did when the marriage was a sham?
---

Zangulus posted...

Keep trying to justify it. Were all ears about how youre obviously okay with what you did.

Ok, you tell me why it was wrong for me to do what I did when the marriage was a sham?
---

lihlih posted...

How is it wrong for me to do what I did when the marriage was a sham?

Then end the marriage. 2 wrongs do not make a right.

---

lihlih posted...

Ok, you tell me why it was wrong for me to do what I did when the marriage was a sham?

Sham marriage, adulterer, and you see no issue with viewing someone's illegally shared nudes. Are you even paying child support to your ex-gf, former mistress and mother of your child?

---

lihlih posted...

How is it wrong for me to do what I did when the marriage was a sham?

Because you didn't have the balls to end the relationship properly before sleeping around.

---

Zangulus posted...

Who are you trying to convince? You still got someone pregnant when you were married.

Let alone the whole why you were married in the first place. Wasnt it for marriage benefits? Through fraud. Another amoral thing.

So shut up and sit down. You got nowhere to stand on your shit morals.

Why does it matter if we were still married when the marriage was a sham? You're just bringing up unnecessary shit just to try and justify your irrational hatred towards me. The fraud of marriage, I'll give you, but none of the hatred towards me is from that. It's just something you and the haters just started stating once you guys realized how stupid of you guys' arguments were.

SunWuKung420 posted...

Sham marriage, adulterer, and you see no issue with viewing someone's illegally shared nudes. Are you even paying child support to your ex-gf, former mistress and mother of your child?

We're actually back together.
---

Jen0125 posted...

You also cheated on your wife and impregnated another woman so

lmfaooooooo

---

My comment wasn't a deflection. It was pointing out that you are of low moral character and I'm not surprised you don't see an issue with looking at nude photos you know were posted without consent.

---

Jen0125 posted...

My comment wasn't a deflection. It was pointing out that you are of low moral character and I'm not surprised you don't see an issue with looking at nude photos you know were posted without consent.

Except you never stated why. The person isn't going to be more or less hurt because someone they don't know at all is looking at it or not. If it's someone they know personally, it's a different story, but someone completely random, it makes no difference whatsoever.

Like I've stated previously, uploading it is a completely different story and it's wrong no matter what the circumstances are. Just looking at it though, there's no harm being done at all.
---

Per the usual on gamefaqs, this topic went way off the rail

CTLM posted...

Per the usual on gamefaqs, this topic went way off the rail

And isnt that what PotD is all about?
---

lihlih posted...

Except you never stated why. The person isn't going to be more or less hurt because someone they don't know at all is looking at it or not. If it's someone they know personally, it's a different story, but someone completely random, it makes no difference whatsoever.

Like I've stated previously, uploading it is a completely different story and it's wrong no matter what the circumstances are. Just looking at it though, there's no harm being done at all.

You don't think someone is going to be hurt knowing strangers are looking at their nude photos online that were posted without their consent? Really? There's a lot of potential emotional and mental harm being done there.

---

Any potential emotional / mental harm is being done regardless of how many people look at it or if anyone even does. Bad argument.

---

fuzzball01 posted...

Any potential emotional / mental harm is being done regardless of how many people look at it or if anyone even does. Bad argument.

Spoken like a true menace

---

Jen0125 posted...

Spoken like a true menace

Theyre right, though. The mental and emotional damage will be the same whether 1 billion people look at it, or 100 people. Or 1 person. All she knows is its out there. She probably wont ever find out how many people have actually seen the picture...
---

lihlih posted...

Except you never stated why. The person isn't going to be more or less hurt because someone they don't know at all is looking at it or not. If it's someone they know personally, it's a different story, but someone completely random, it makes no difference whatsoever.

Like I've stated previously, uploading it is a completely different story and it's wrong no matter what the circumstances are. Just looking at it though, there's no harm being done at all.

Are you aware that this exact logic can be used to justify watching child porn?

---

LinkPizza posted...

Theyre right, though. The mental and emotional damage will be the same whether 1 billion people look at it, or 100 people. Or 1 person. All she knows is its out there. She probably wont ever find out how many people have actually seen the picture...

I'm glad you guys can quantify mental and emotional trauma so easily. And how is it you're quantifying that exactly?

---

Jen0125 posted...

I'm glad you guys can quantify mental and emotional trauma so easily. And how is it you're quantifying that exactly?

But it's true. They have no idea how many have seen it. And you never responded to my last post

OhhhJa posted...

But it's true. They have no idea how many have seen it. And you never responded to my last post

And how are you quantifying it? I didn't see your last post. I don't read every post in a topic.

---

Jen0125 posted...

And how are you quantifying it? I didn't see your last post. I don't read every post in a topic.

That's convenient

Jen has nothing to add.

Reasonable people: We're saying that they're traumatized already and a random person looking at it isn't going to affect the person at all. Can you elaborate on how it affects someone?

Jen: OMG, looking at it is wrong because it's traumatizing!

Reasonable people: That didn't answer the question at all.

Jen: OMG, looking at it is wrong because it's traumatizing
---

Jen0125 posted...

I'm glad you guys can quantify mental and emotional trauma so easily. And how is it you're quantifying that exactly?

How are you? Because unless she can read minds, she wont know who or how many people have seen it. Shell feel the same way if a billion people saw it or it literally no one saw it. Because she wont know...
---

lihlih posted...

Jen has nothing to add.

Reasonable people: We're saying that they're traumatized already and a random person looking at it isn't going to affect the person at all. Can you elaborate on how it affects someone?

Jen: OMG, looking at it is wrong because it's traumatizing!

Reasonable people: That didn't answer the question at all.

Jen: OMG, looking at it is wrong because it's traumatizing

Is that really what you're taking away from this?

How are you quantifying the difference between one stranger viewing your nude body without consent and thousands? What is your basis for saying the threshold for maximum trauma is one single person? What is your basis?

---

LinkPizza posted...

How are you? Because unless she can read minds, she wont know who or how many people have seen it. Shell feel the same way if a billion people saw it or it literally no one saw it. Because she wont know...

I'm not quantifying it because it's different for every single person. You shouldn't be quantifying it either.

You have literally no basis for saying she wouldn't care if a billion people saw it more than one person. That's ridiculous.

---

Idk see how jen isnt understanding this

She has a nice butt and thighs. Would love to put my face in there and inhale. Might make her butt pick my phone homescreen for a while

---

Are we really ignoring that people are using a defense that can be applied verbatim to watching child porn?

---

OhhhJa posted...

Idk see how jen isnt understanding this

It's funny because I don't know how you guys aren't understanding it and I'm honestly tired of talking to a bunch of unempathetic victim blamers who think they can tell someone how they should feel about being violated intentionally in front of the entire world. In fact, I'm so tired of it that I'm done replying to anymore people in this topic.

---

Jen0125 posted...

I'm not quantifying it because it's different for every single person. You shouldn't be quantifying it either.

You have literally no basis for saying she wouldn't care if a billion people saw it more than one person. That's ridiculous.

It is different for every person. But how is more people seeing it going to traumatize her more of she doesnt know more people have seen it? Its ridiculous that you dont understand this...
---

Can we all agree that boobs are against the law

---

LinkPizza posted...

It is different for every person. But how is more people seeing it going to traumatize her more of she doesnt know more people have seen it? Its ridiculous that you dont understand this...

Yeah she seems to be willfully ignoring that point

adjl posted...

Are we really ignoring that people are using a defense that can be applied verbatim to watching child porn?

Well, first off we arent talking about children and we also arent talking about supporting something that contributes to something like child trafficking. Also, the point that jen never responded that I made earlier was that you cant claim the moral high ground if you regularly watch porn since you are knowingly going to come across videos posted without folks consent or that were coerced or forced into it

Jen0125 posted...

In fact, I'm so tired of it that I'm done replying to anymore people in this topic.

oh no, whatever will the people desperate for your attention do now?
---

lihlih posted...

Except you never stated why. The person isn't going to be more or less hurt because someone they don't know at all is looking at it or not. If it's someone they know personally, it's a different story, but someone completely random, it makes no difference whatsoever.

this was the issue I was getting at earlier. I think the only reason you can say "it makes no difference" is because of mob mentality: "everyone else is doing it so it doesn't matter if I do to".

pictures are hacked by someone else...

• specifically for you; you obtain them and "use" them -> not ok (right?)
• specifically for you and your friend, you obtain them and "use" them -> not ok (right?)
• specifically for you and your friends, you obtain them and "use" them -> not ok (right?)
• for everyone in your... town?, you obtain them and "use" them -> not ok? ok?
• for everyone in the world, you obtain them and "use" them -> all of a sudden ok?

the size of the distribution gives the impression that the feeling of responsibility has been diluted down into insignificance, but that shouldn't change the *morality* of the act. (should it?)

---

Zangulus posted...

amoral

was gonna say, don't you mean "immoral". amoral means something like, something to which morals don't apply. but as a descriptor for a person, it means something like "not caring what is moral or immoral". that definitely seems to fit here.

---