Anybody believe this guy - Ashley Madison leak

Forums › Off topic › Anybody believe this guy - Ashley Madison leak

1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | ... | 17

821 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1372380 23-Aug-2015 11:15

InactiveKick: Really? Are we still discussing religion?!? I mean, wtf? I don't care, and i don't wanna know. Can we end it right here, pls?? For cryin' out loud :/

I wasn't discussing religion.

I think it is fair enough pointing out that something is off-topic.

But, I don't agree about taking exception to a statement that is true.

gzt

17149 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1372388 23-Aug-2015 11:21

InactiveKick: Agree.. i take exception to your religious comments Geektastic - especially since it's not even on topic. Was going to flag your post, but an Admin'

has already put you on notice, so :P

InactiveKick: Really? Are we still discussing religion?!? I mean, wtf? I don't care, and i don't wanna know. Can we end it right here, pls?? For cryin' out loud :/

InactiveKick: Well spotted, Einstein... can't bget a thing past you, can we? :/

You restarted it with your i-told-you-so, and now you are off topic and now probably trying to further derail this thread on purpose for some reason.

DizzyD

523 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1372390 23-Aug-2015 11:22

freitasm: Lots of difference between a public figure's privacy and a normal citizen.

A public figure has to expect his own life will be scrutinised on a different level.

But is this not what this thread is all about, It is about Public figures?? not normal citizens. Or am I missing something here?

Bit of a grey area IMO. Normal citizen/public figure?
Some public figures don't choose to be public figures!!
Would it be morally unacceptable for JK or any other public figure to have been a member of that site?

JWR:
If any senior public figure joined this site, then it's their sanity and judgment that would be immediately questioned.

What is your definition of public figure?

gzt

17149 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1372392 23-Aug-2015 11:27

If information like that becomes public about a politician then each voter makes a personal decision about that in the booth.

InactiveKick

14 posts

Geek
Inactive user

#1372393 23-Aug-2015 11:32

I'm pretty sure he's simply implying that as a public figure (especially a publically elected official like politicians),

that going into such an office - and with the high expectations on behaviour / conduct, you think these guys

would err on the side of caution *before* going down some dodgy path... but clearly not for those officials

whose email addresses appeared on the list.

I digress though, for mine, karma is this strange, universal force that has its own way of dealing with folks.

If that sounds "religious mumbo-jumbo" to you (or anyone), it isn't... i've lived way too long to witness

it in action, and the irony part of a storyline is usually an uncanny giveaway. :o

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1372394 23-Aug-2015 11:32

If a public figure is an athlete, or actor, or 'celebrity', then what that person gets up to in private is of no concern to anyone else, though voyeur publications and the voyeurs who read them will beg to differ. If the public figure is a politician, or church person claiming moral authority or something similar, then it does become a matter of public concern because such people have influence over the lives of others. This is not a difficult distinction to make.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1372396 23-Aug-2015 11:41

InactiveKick:

I digress though, for mine, karma is strange, universal force that has its own way of dealing with folks.

Well that karma must kick in one we reach "the afterlife" then, 'cause some people who have done the most awful things to others seem to still enjoy remarkably blessed mortal lives, yet some of the most wonderful, caring people I've known had been rewarded with lashings of torturous misery.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

InactiveKick

14 posts

Geek
Inactive user

#1372398 23-Aug-2015 11:47

True, but by no fault of their own, public figures such as athletes.. actors.. famous musicians, become

influential (mostly to impressionable youth).

To that end, who is accountable for all the graphic innuendo of violence, sex, drug / alcohol culture floating

around in the mass-media?? Is no-one accountable? Are the film / music studios accountable?

I ask, as youthful fans atypically want to mimic their idols in sport or entertainment, down to what

they act like and live like - even when the celebrity isn't on the clock (the Paparazzi have well & truly seen to that).

So, is it an unfair assumption to put an onus of responsibility on famous celebrity types for this reason?

On logic, No. But on the balance of all evidence, it's almost as though it ought to be that way.

Power to influence the Zeitgeist (aka the Culture) almost puts as much responsibility of care on the athletes,

musos / actors, as it does on publicly elected personnel, in some odd way. But we all know that isn't the case

- and i don't ever see it happening. The point is therefore (sadly) moot.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1372400 23-Aug-2015 11:50

freitasm:

Keep religion out of this thread from now on everyone. I think it is been discussed enough.

You're at risk of killing what could turn out to be one of GZ record-breaking OT threads (and an interesting one IMO);
There are plenty of non-theistic structures/belief systems, accepted social mores / ideological norms, organisations with "teachings" and "followers" which fall far short of being "cults", but could easily meet the definition of "religion". Commonly (but not limited to) political ideologies.
Ban that discussion - and you're probably banning all discussion which isn't based on original free-thought. I'd love to be able to claim that all my ideas and philosophy (for what they're worth) are my own - but nope - most comes from elsewhere, some of it's dogma too. I've been brainwashed since the day I was born.

May I suggest as an alternative, to lock any user out of the thread who:

1) Uses negative stereotypes (ie adulterers, tele-evangelists, hackers can be evil - but it's disingenuous to suggest or imply that they must all be evil).
2) Insults or threatens anybody else - including by belittling their values.

Criticism is OK - intolerance isn't.

gzt

17149 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1372403 23-Aug-2015 11:59

Morality is a variable independent of religion. Define: morality

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1372404 23-Aug-2015 11:59

I think the Big Man in the sky is trying to avoid a religious war. People tend to get very irrational about this kind of thing.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

InactiveKick

14 posts

Geek
Inactive user

#1372407 23-Aug-2015 12:02

To have known a person, as close to you & i as very good friends and/or family, is to directly imply we know them well.

I can atest to some of my closest friends and family being wonderful people, on the face of it.

All of us... yes, even the nicest folk, have a darker side (think of Billy Joel's 'The Stranger' song, and i think you get a pretty

good idea what i'm talking about). So essentially, there's sides to even the apparently saintly folk we know, and consequently,

things done in their past we never know of. I don't mean to sound accusational, facetious or offensive, but do you claim to know everything

about your very good friends? I know that i know *a lot* about my family and friends - but i also am aware i don't know

everything about their past.

Don't be so quick to judge someone as saintly, and another as a lost cause based on simply your personal experiences of them.

More often than not, we're different things to different people.. i know for sure that i am. For that reason, i've always found it very hard

to trust new acquaintances in my life. Good things really do take time, and that especially applies to building trust amongst people.

Take care.

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1372408 23-Aug-2015 12:03

Fred99:
freitasm:

Keep religion out of this thread from now on everyone. I think it is been discussed enough.

You're at risk of killing what could turn out to be one of GZ record-breaking OT threads (and an interesting one IMO);
There are plenty of non-theistic structures/belief systems, accepted social mores / ideological norms, organisations with "teachings" and "followers" which fall far short of being "cults", but could easily meet the definition of "religion". Commonly (but not limited to) political ideologies.
Ban that discussion - and you're probably banning all discussion which isn't based on original free-thought. I'd love to be able to claim that all my ideas and philosophy (for what they're worth) are my own - but nope - most comes from elsewhere, some of it's dogma too. I've been brainwashed since the day I was born.

May I suggest as an alternative, to lock any user out of the thread who:

1) Uses negative stereotypes (ie adulterers, tele-evangelists, hackers can be evil - but it's disingenuous to suggest or imply that they must all be evil).
2) Insults or threatens anybody else - including by belittling their values.

Criticism is OK - intolerance isn't.

How is a person supposed to know what the values of every person reading a thread may be?!

Batman

Mad Scientist
29769 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1372412 23-Aug-2015 12:07

I thought threads in "Off Topic" forum can never go off topic?

InactiveKick

14 posts

Geek
Inactive user

#1372413 23-Aug-2015 12:08

Snap! So to simplify things, forum moderators lay down ground rules & guidlines of acceptable dialogue and/or subject matter.

Note to Fred99: in other words, if you don't like the rules / regulations / guidlines, you can always start your own blog-site.

1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | ... | 17