You guys are avoiding the issue

[SecondCircle]

Ya know, every one of the currently whining celebs need to buy a clue from former Disney star Dylan Spouse.

When his ex decided to embarrass him last year by posting nude selfies he had sent her, he manned up and took full blame for being dumb enough to take the pics in the first place.

http://33.media.tumblr.com/65e8c25bbefb486692277b1017263927/tumblr_mxvvs0H37j1s3y9slo1_500.png

Pretty smart for a twenty-one year old kid that got caught with his pants down for the whole world to see.

Aye. Pretty dumb indeed.

Doesn't mean chick's not an asshole for doing something like that. And doesn't really mean that she is justified in taking images given in confidence and spreading them for all to see. I think that's still ultimately a "dick move".

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

No, they were not JUST nude selfies... Those who have seen ALL the pics will know what I am talking about. Some of them were extraordinarily sexually self-expressive.

My own view is that the world has already radically changed and there needs to be a strong educational and psychology-based ethics discussion and program going on in schools.

This is never going to stop from here on in. Similar sorts of events will continue to happen, if only on many occasions to do with publicity machines. And that leads us to what to do about children encountering these things.

But the question is - how to give children enough background and philosophy that some will be able to 'not watch' if they choose to use their intellectual determination, and the rest will not proceed to (falsely) disrespect people in real life on account of what they saw.

Personally, I looked, I saw, I was impressed.

I any case I don't expect people to be hyprocritical in the sense that I personally don't expect celebrities to be Mother Teresa or some virginal nun in real life just because they are celebrities in public life. This is the kind of thing people used to accuse the Victorian Era people of being and they even coined the phrase 'Victorian Hypocrisy' about it.

 

[stickygirl]

Forgive me for being confused but you seem to be giving mixed messages
"Some of them were extraordinarily sexually self-expressive."
"Personally, I looked, I saw, I was impressed." ( in a good way or not? )
but
"My own view is that the world has already radically changed and there needs to be a strong educational and psychology-based ethics discussion and program going on in schools."

So is it just children you wish to shield from these kinds of images, rather than debate the privacy side of things? If you're suggesting schools and PARENTS take some responsibility in educating children, I'm with you. Kids under a certain age can be traumatised, even if they don't understand what is going on; teens will often take their existence as simple confirmation that 'it must be ok to do that (because they are on the web…)' Adults… well we don't have to look far to see their effect

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

I sound confused because I am slightly conflicted about what I find myself being forced to think.

I really like this bit you said:

"So is it just children you wish to shield from these kinds of images, rather than debate the privacy side of things? If you're suggesting schools and PARENTS take some responsibility in educating children, I'm with you. Kids under a certain age can be traumatised, even if they don't understand what is going on; teens will often take their existence as simple confirmation that 'it must be ok to do that (because they are on the web…)' Adults… well we don't have to look far to see their effect."

But especially: "teens will often take their existence as simple confirmation that it must be ok to do that (because they are on the web...)"

Some time ago, pretty much at the start of the broad public use of the internet - and some people looked upon it as an Orwellian or Tavistock House conspiracy, really - even governments pushed this 'totally free' internet policy, KNOWING that it would mean exposure by children to all kinds of problematic things.

Okay but my own personal attitude to the thing is very very complex - 'schools and parents take responsibility in educating children.' Oh yep, definitely. But what do I mean? I mean something extremely deep, and that depth, frankly, is also demanded by the situation of this modern century/modern world.

I don't mean educating children to make simplistic 'moral' decisions in line with any simple dogma. I mean educating children to be able to have general restraint, general self-control, care and respect for others - all that kind of thing.

I want to believe next year's teens will not develop into pumped up professional footballers who could knock some woman out with a punch to the head for any reason whatsoever.

I want... children to grow into culturally and ethically and intellectually strong adults capable of handling the problems of a massive unstoppable revolution in technology. I don't want adults to become more furtive about their sexuality than they already are - which leads to and has led to bizarre and abhorrent behaviour regularly.

I do understand that even in the best of societies there may be, or will be, serial killers, lunatics,
the unstable -, and so modern access to EVERYTHING via technology means exposure to not just socially responsible people, or safe people, but also to very very unsafe people.

But it was ever thus. We think about it as being 'more' or 'worse' now because of the newness of the technology and the vastness of its reach.

My thinking has proceeded from the belief that the privacy issue is past the point where it will ever realistically be the same as it once was - we do not have privacy as we did in the past and the sooner we face this the quicker we might come up with a process to handle this new condition.

I don't want to debate the privacy issue because to me, it's now a waste of time and would end up being a kind of an indulgence of nostalgia.

We do not have privacy.

We can have some people going off into what is it called 'Luddite-ism' as a response to this loss. I wouldn't blame them.

I think... the challenge for top notch educators and all educators who have a deep commitment to the role - is an extremely demanding one and very very complex and will now have to involve and include so many cross-referencing points, and self-adjusting frameworks within people's mindsets for morals and ethics that tie to so many different aspects of life and society.

We need to develop better people than have ever been developed before.

We need to develop actually better people - better in their hearts and in their souls, not this mawkish and fake sentiment and lip-service to decency. But something actually and reliably decent in human beings.

Human beings have got to decide to grow up and be worthy of the science passed on to us, and worthy of the technology available, and powerful enough within their personalities to be able to handle the scope of what has become possible, socially, materially, intellectually.

Or else, some people are going to lose grip on the steep surface of the world and start to slip backwards like the Neanderthals. I definitely think this is where two parts of the human race will split apart.

I don't think this is 'funny' or something anybody can afford to sneer at from some position of arrogance - I think this is really going to happen; the world is going to break off into two distinct types of social groups. One that can handle the modern technological world and all that it implies, and one that can't.

The world is going to completely change. There is no doubt in my mind, of that.

When truth is released, or revealed, everything changes. It's different from a movie.

 

[stickygirl]

Wooo - looks like I hit a nerve!
Education- yup: developing minds so they have the wit to ask questions, not a blind acceptance of ritual and custom. It doesn't really matter what that education is because the brain is like any other organ - you make it work better by using it.

I'm not sure I share you fears over humanity tearing itself apart anymore than it has done since the stone age, but I can't argue with education and the inquiring mind.

 

[Hypoxia]

Isn't critical thinking illegal?

 

[stickygirl]

Isn't critical thinking illegal?

That's critical mass you're thinking of

 

[Handley_Page]

That's critical mass you're thinking of

You well, Jane ?

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

Thank god for you, Hypoxia. I write too many words! And you say it all.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I sound confused because I am slightly conflicted about what I find myself being forced to think.

I really like this bit you said:

"So is it just children you wish to shield from these kinds of images, rather than debate the privacy side of things? If you're suggesting schools and PARENTS take some responsibility in educating children, I'm with you. Kids under a certain age can be traumatised, even if they don't understand what is going on; teens will often take their existence as simple confirmation that 'it must be ok to do that (because they are on the web…)' Adults… well we don't have to look far to see their effect."

But especially: "teens will often take their existence as simple confirmation that it must be ok to do that (because they are on the web...)"

Some time ago, pretty much at the start of the broad public use of the internet - and some people looked upon it as an Orwellian or Tavistock House conspiracy, really - even governments pushed this 'totally free' internet policy, KNOWING that it would mean exposure by children to all kinds of problematic things.

Okay but my own personal attitude to the thing is very very complex - 'schools and parents take responsibility in educating children.' Oh yep, definitely. But what do I mean? I mean something extremely deep, and that depth, frankly, is also demanded by the situation of this modern century/modern world.

I don't mean educating children to make simplistic 'moral' decisions in line with any simple dogma. I mean educating children to be able to have general restraint, general self-control, care and respect for others - all that kind of thing.

I want to believe next year's teens will not develop into pumped up professional footballers who could knock some woman out with a punch to the head for any reason whatsoever.

I want... children to grow into culturally and ethically and intellectually strong adults capable of handling the problems of a massive unstoppable revolution in technology. I don't want adults to become more furtive about their sexuality than they already are - which leads to and has led to bizarre and abhorrent behaviour regularly.

I do understand that even in the best of societies there may be, or will be, serial killers, lunatics,
the unstable -, and so modern access to EVERYTHING via technology means exposure to not just socially responsible people, or safe people, but also to very very unsafe people.

But it was ever thus. We think about it as being 'more' or 'worse' now because of the newness of the technology and the vastness of its reach.

My thinking has proceeded from the belief that the privacy issue is past the point where it will ever realistically be the same as it once was - we do not have privacy as we did in the past and the sooner we face this the quicker we might come up with a process to handle this new condition.

I don't want to debate the privacy issue because to me, it's now a waste of time and would end up being a kind of an indulgence of nostalgia.

We do not have privacy.

We can have some people going off into what is it called 'Luddite-ism' as a response to this loss. I wouldn't blame them.

I think... the challenge for top notch educators and all educators who have a deep commitment to the role - is an extremely demanding one and very very complex and will now have to involve and include so many cross-referencing points, and self-adjusting frameworks within people's mindsets for morals and ethics that tie to so many different aspects of life and society.

We need to develop better people than have ever been developed before.

We need to develop actually better people - better in their hearts and in their souls, not this mawkish and fake sentiment and lip-service to decency. But something actually and reliably decent in human beings.

Human beings have got to decide to grow up and be worthy of the science passed on to us, and worthy of the technology available, and powerful enough within their personalities to be able to handle the scope of what has become possible, socially, materially, intellectually.

Or else, some people are going to lose grip on the steep surface of the world and start to slip backwards like the Neanderthals. I definitely think this is where two parts of the human race will split apart.

I don't think this is 'funny' or something anybody can afford to sneer at from some position of arrogance - I think this is really going to happen; the world is going to break off into two distinct types of social groups. One that can handle the modern technological world and all that it implies, and one that can't.

The world is going to completely change. There is no doubt in my mind, of that.

When truth is released, or revealed, everything changes. It's different from a movie.

Women often need beatings, to help them distinguish reality from law.

 

[stickygirl]

Women often need beatings, to help them distinguish reality from law.

Huh? C'mon BJ - what about Homos, Blacks, Spiks, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Democrats, people with disabilities, Vietnamese of course, anyone with herpes, people who stammer, left-handed people, Russians, East Europeans, anyone who lives in a house made of brick or stone, Canadians, Arabs, people who wear glasses, staff in your care home - in fact all doctors and nurses, government officials, Mormons?, the Limeys, French or anyone that drinks wine or warm beer, people that drive on the left... other than that, I'd say you were a regular guy. How's the garden btw?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Huh? C'mon BJ - what about Homos, Blacks, Spiks, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Democrats, people with disabilities, Vietnamese of course, anyone with herpes, people who stammer, left-handed people, Russians, East Europeans, anyone who lives in a house made of brick or stone, Canadians, Arabs, people who wear glasses, staff in your care home - in fact all doctors and nurses, government officials, Mormons?, the Limeys, French or anyone that drinks wine or warm beer, people that drive on the left... other than that, I'd say you were a regular guy. How's the garden btw?

I have standards.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Huh? C'mon BJ - what about Homos, Blacks, Spiks, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Democrats, people with disabilities, Vietnamese of course, anyone with herpes, people who stammer, left-handed people, Russians, East Europeans, anyone who lives in a house made of brick or stone, Canadians, Arabs, people who wear glasses, staff in your care home - in fact all doctors and nurses, government officials, Mormons?, the Limeys, French or anyone that drinks wine or warm beer, people that drive on the left... other than that, I'd say you were a regular guy. How's the garden btw?

A spade is a spade. Just because it's also a shovel, doesn't mean you have to call it a shovel.

 

[TamLin01]

Is it okay to see/watch the deliberately sexual intimate acts of people that you don't know?

No.

That's it, that's the whole answer: No. Assuming of course you're referring to people who don't know that you're watching them and didn't intend to have an audience (as phrased, the question requires that we figure that part out for ourselves), the answer is, as it always has been (and as everyone has always known, from the moment they were old enough to even hazily grasp the concepts in play here), no.

Whole lotta words spent here over something that is, frankly, non-debatable.

 

[Handley_Page]

Huh? C'mon BJ - what about Homos, Blacks, Spiks, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Democrats, people with disabilities, Vietnamese of course, anyone with herpes, people who stammer, left-handed people, Russians, East Europeans, anyone who lives in a house made of brick or stone, Canadians, Arabs, people who wear glasses, staff in your care home - in fact all doctors and nurses, government officials, Mormons?, the Limeys, French or anyone that drinks wine or warm beer, people that drive on the left... other than that, I'd say you were a regular guy. How's the garden btw?

And what's wrong with being left-handed ?
And wear glasses ?
In a brick house ?

PS. You surely do not imply that classic English beer is "warm", do you?
Cellar cool, as it damned well should be.
This freezing stuff is a pain in the mouth.