Dubstepforum.com

is flava d a lesbo

We should big ups the spam bots to see how high we can get it before it gets banned.

kaili wrote:is flava d a lesbo

maybe

so Ikea is one of the big multinationals dodging local tax like Google
and claiming charity status or someat
fuck em...boycott the flat pack I say

magma wrote:

Electric_Head wrote:Anyone seen this whole Jennifer Lawrence leaked nudes scandal?
I see the FBI are even involved now.

Talk about a massive waste of resources.

Why is it a "massive waste of resources" to investigate the hacking of Jennifer Lawrence but "disgusting press behaviour" to hack Millie Dowler?

Because Lawrence is an attractive, famous woman and therefore doesn't deserve any rights to privacy? Because it was wank material rather than ghoulish gossip? Because we're so desensitized to naked women on the Internet that it's difficult to understand why a woman would ever bother keeping her clothes on?

Hopefully someone will go down HARD for this and people will be discouraged from doing this sort of thing in future whether the victims are famous or not. It's disgusting how many people seem to think it's acceptable, frankly. Same goes for all those "Ex-Girlfriend" revenge sites. Fucking scumbags need locking up.

Someone needs to put your fanny on a leash.

magma wrote:

Electric_Head wrote:Anyone seen this whole Jennifer Lawrence leaked nudes scandal?
I see the FBI are even involved now.

Talk about a massive waste of resources.

Why is it a "massive waste of resources" to investigate the hacking of Jennifer Lawrence but "disgusting press behaviour" to hack Millie Dowler?

Because Lawrence is an attractive, famous woman and therefore doesn't deserve any rights to privacy? Because it was wank material rather than ghoulish gossip? Because we're so desensitized to naked women on the Internet that it's difficult to understand why a woman would ever bother keeping her clothes on?

Hopefully someone will go down HARD for this and people will be discouraged from doing this sort of thing in future whether the victims are famous or not. It's disgusting how many people seem to think it's acceptable, frankly. Same goes for all those "Ex-Girlfriend" revenge sites. Fucking scumbags need locking up.

I never said anything about Millie Dowler?
I think it is a waste of FBI resources to investigate this.
Yes I agree it is not acceptable that the photos have been hacked.

Electric_Head wrote:

magma wrote:

Electric_Head wrote:Anyone seen this whole Jennifer Lawrence leaked nudes scandal?
I see the FBI are even involved now.

Talk about a massive waste of resources.

Why is it a "massive waste of resources" to investigate the hacking of Jennifer Lawrence but "disgusting press behaviour" to hack Millie Dowler?

Because Lawrence is an attractive, famous woman and therefore doesn't deserve any rights to privacy? Because it was wank material rather than ghoulish gossip? Because we're so desensitized to naked women on the Internet that it's difficult to understand why a woman would ever bother keeping her clothes on?

Hopefully someone will go down HARD for this and people will be discouraged from doing this sort of thing in future whether the victims are famous or not. It's disgusting how many people seem to think it's acceptable, frankly. Same goes for all those "Ex-Girlfriend" revenge sites. Fucking scumbags need locking up.

I never said anything about Millie Dowler?
I think it is a waste of FBI resources to investigate this.
Yes I agree it is not acceptable that the photos have been hacked.

I know you didn't, sorry I forgot one has to be entirely explicit with shit like this around here. I was seeking to connect your logic on this subject to the "common sense" logic that was applied to a similar case - Millie Dowler.

I was invoking the standard media/general public reaction to both incidents to contrast and compare. When a dead teenager from England's voicemail gets hacked to see if she's still alive, it's disgusting invasion of privacy that results in national scandal for months and panic-driven reductions in press freedoms; when an attractive, famous woman in America has her e-mail hacked and nudes distributed globally it's "not worth the hassle".

They seem like the same crime to me. If anything, the crime against Jennifer Lawrence et al is greater because they're like, alive and shit and there's no chance of tracking down a missing person.

Chasing down and locking up scumbags is never a waste of time. I don't really see what the moral difference between this sort of thing and hanging around in someone's bushes with a long lens and a view of their bathroom window tbh, but every "lad" on the Internet is desperately clutching at straws trying to justify their lowest wank since the Tulisa blowjob.

jesslem wrote:

magma wrote:

Electric_Head wrote:Anyone seen this whole Jennifer Lawrence leaked nudes scandal?
I see the FBI are even involved now.

Talk about a massive waste of resources.

Why is it a "massive waste of resources" to investigate the hacking of Jennifer Lawrence but "disgusting press behaviour" to hack Millie Dowler?

Because Lawrence is an attractive, famous woman and therefore doesn't deserve any rights to privacy? Because it was wank material rather than ghoulish gossip? Because we're so desensitized to naked women on the Internet that it's difficult to understand why a woman would ever bother keeping her clothes on?

Hopefully someone will go down HARD for this and people will be discouraged from doing this sort of thing in future whether the victims are famous or not. It's disgusting how many people seem to think it's acceptable, frankly. Same goes for all those "Ex-Girlfriend" revenge sites. Fucking scumbags need locking up.

Someone needs to put your fanny on a leash.

Oh, fuck off clown.

How can you try and chat shit when you're presenting such a flaccid argument?

It's a waste of resources because the FBI doesn't do shit when a woman who is attractive, but not famous, has her privacy invaded.
Honestly I think the words you're using to describe this situation are bullshit but hopefully using them myself gets the point across.

Sorry, I thought all you had to offer to the conversation was telling me that my fanny needs to be put on a leash.

You want an actual interaction about it?

Ok, I agree, the same effort should be put in no matter who the target of the attack is. It's sad that the FBI only get going for a cause célèbre like this, but that doesn't make it a waste of time. How can not spending enough time on an issue (i.e. not investigating enough of the cases) constitute a waste of time?

But my main point is I'm genuinely saddened, borderline disgusted by the amount of men currently trying to defend seeking out these sorts of pictures. Those arguments would be the definition of flaccid if most of them didn't revolve around erections.

For one thing, she did agree to Apple's terms and conditions. Unless I'm mistaken, the most she could do is try to sue apple; which shouldn't hold up in a reasonable court.

I reckon the only reason the FBI are getting in on this is to find new recruits.

Why would she sue Apple? I thought her login details were stolen?

I haven't been following it entirely, but I thought Apple made a statement in the last couple of days to say their systems hadn't been breached.

I reckon the only reason the FBI are getting in on this is to find new recruits.

Yeah, I bet they have no end of problems finding people who want to be in the FBI.

I thought she was the one whose files had been deleted from her personal devices but remained in cloud storage companies' databases, in which case they own the content.

I wrote a response to you two pages ago aswell magma..

jesslem wrote:I thought she was the one whose files had been deleted from her personal devices but remained in cloud storage companies' databases, in which case they own the content.

Whatever the legal options she has, are you really disputing the idea that she's been wronged and someone deserves to be punished for it or are you just looking for something to argue about?

I don't really know the case or the American legal system well enough to go back and forth on her legal options and I'm not really that interested; I was just expressing disgust at the way most conversations I've seen about this seem to be going. i.e. "Yeah, isn't it AWFUL, but HAHA... TITTIES! EVERYONE LOOK! TITTIES! Actually, she's fucking UGLY, isn't she? Aren't these women fucking sluts. I wanked over them, but it took ages."

Or did she invite this the second she took the picture?

hubb wrote:I wrote a response to you two pages ago aswell magma..

Ok.

hubb wrote:Not a very good post magma.

One thing is asking yourself a lot of questions, but you're also making some very broad comparisons.

Fame is money, money is power and in that sence they deserve more scrutiny than regular people just like politicians do.
Power/ influence invites scrutiny and it should.

Is scrutiny the right to see them naked and/or having sex? Really?

And why does an actress need more scrutiny than anyone else? Is Jennifer Lawrence promoting herself as a paragon of virginal virtue? Last time I checked she was making movies, not teaching kindergarten.

That is not the same as saying they deserve this in any way ofcourse

Only, it actually is saying exactly that. It's no different to "She wouldn't have got raped if she hadn't been dressed like that".

Victim blaming. Don't fall for such an obvious okeydoke, man.

but it's completely ridiculous to argue they should be able to have a unique form of protection or even buy one.

Never said they should have unique privacy. Only that all our privacy should be equal. If Millie Dowler's voicemail is sacred, so is Jennifer Lawrences iDrive.

So in that sence, me getting my ps3 hacked through sonys servers is technically as bad as this.

Yes, it would be if as a result an image of you naked and vulnerable had circulated the world and been wanked over by half the teenagers in Christendom.

I don't think people think it is acceptable, I think they see celebrity culture as unnaccetable and that's why people treat them differently. Imo rightly so.

Oh, right. I see.

No, wait, I don't see at all.

ex girl revenge thing is entirely different.

How is it any different? Both are circulating *private* images of naked women to people that the image was never intended to be seen by. How is there a difference? Because one of them's famous?

What about if my ex-girl was only famous in certain circles? Would it be ok to distribute her image only to people who'd heard of her?

Keep trying to justify that wank, dude.

The sensible response is that it's media and low standards, the economy of clicks or whatever.

A lot of people will physically need to fap over this, because they've been told how attractive and classy she is on all the other pages, that is hard to blame them with tbh.

hubb wrote:The sensible response is that it's media and low standards, the economy of clicks or whatever.

A lot of people will physically need to fap over this, because they've been told how attractive and classy she is on all the other pages, that is hard to blame them with tbh.

Christ almighty.

A lot of people will PHYSICALLY NEED to fap over a woman just because she's famous?

No, a lot of people will be PSYCHOLOGICALLY UNABLE TO STOP THEMSELVES fapping over any woman they're seeing naked when they know they shouldn't be. It's a cheap thrill because it's ever so slightly forbidden, just like catching sight of your neighbour changing through her bedroom window. Just because the Internet has allowed us all to be Peeping Toms doesn't mean we PHYSICALLY NEED to be Peeping Toms. We have brains. We have choice. We're better than this.

A generation ago this wouldn't have been morally confusing.

Is scrutiny the right to see them naked and/or having sex? Really?

Oh ofcourse not. But it's their responsibility to defend their privacy more so than everybody else because they are paid to be a product.

Only, it actually is saying exactly that. It's no different to "She wouldn't have got raped if she hadn't been dressed like that".

Victim blaming. Don't fall for such an obvious okeydoke, man.

Not at all. i think it's actually a big shame, because we know someone like her that is an oscar darling etc, will have a much harder time getting work because the idea of being immaculate is still such a big part. Someone like Jodi Forster was basicly done when she was painted lesbian.

Never said they should have unique privacy. Only that all our privacy should be equal. If Millie Dowler's voicemail is sacred, so is Jennifer Lawrences iDrive.

totally agree. But it's not that it's sacred, it's that the way media culture is, her being naked on a phone almost becomes a form of currency if we agree that it's not just on her phone but actually on the net and therefore her responsibility in an obviously convoluted terrible way - but still thats the price now.
That's not victim blaming that is being realistic unfortunately.

Yes, it would be if as a result an image of you naked and vulnerable had circulated the world and been wanked over by half the teenagers in Christendom.

- I mean technically in a judicial sence.

I don't think people think it is acceptable, I think they see celebrity culture as unnaccetable and that's why people treat them differently. Imo rightly so.


Oh, right. I see.

No, wait, I don't see at all.

It functions on a complex principle- because all of us have a celebrity that we sort of stand by, despite being critical of the whole thing and maybe even refusing celebrity culture. + and this is important - there's been established an overlap of influence in the usual celeb sence combined with actual pornography in the cases of paris and kardassian which sort of opens a grey zone for spastics.
That's where someone sound like you comes in and understands that there's a line between that and jenniffer lawrences case, but when the outcome of both situations is money and clicks - people just take the argument of money over morality and that is just a general function of capitalism unfortunately.

How is it any different? Both are circulating *private* images of naked women to people that the image was never intended to be seen by. How is there a difference? Because one of them's famous?

What about if my ex-girl was only famous in certain circles? Would it be ok to distribute her image only to people who'd heard of her?

Keep trying to justify that wank, dude.

One is setting out to be vengeful and deliberate and the other is getting paid for trawling through something that is already 'available'.
Oh and pipe down - I'm defending women that doesn't have her money.

magma wrote:

hubb wrote:The sensible response is that it's media and low standards, the economy of clicks or whatever.

A lot of people will physically need to fap over this, because they've been told how attractive and classy she is on all the other pages, that is hard to blame them with tbh.

Christ almighty.

A lot of people will PHYSICALLY NEED to fap over a woman just because she's famous?

No, a lot of people will be PSYCHOLOGICALLY UNABLE TO STOP THEMSELVES fapping over any woman they're seeing naked when they know they shouldn't be. It's a cheap thrill because it's ever so slightly forbidden, just like catching sight of your neighbour changing through her bedroom window. Just because the Internet has allowed us all to be Peeping Toms doesn't mean we PHYSICALLY NEED to be Peeping Toms. We have brains. We have choice. We're better than this.

A generation ago this wouldn't have been morally confusing.

i dont' disagree about where the responsibility lies mostly and you are almost right here, but it doesn't make sence to refute the culture that is set in place that people actually respond to.