My point, very simply (and I agree all this liber-XXXXXX stuff is not helpful, terminology wise) is that the more the state prohibits certain behaviour, the more it implicitly encourages all other behaviour. It cannot be any other way.
There are solutions from both sides of the statist camp here, of course. One solution is less statism, and then people will act more decently - or the few who don’t will be shouted down, as in this thread. The other is more statism, and stricter privacy rules, in which case they will be gaoled.
I favour the former. The latter is equally defensible. Pay your money, take your choice.
I’m pretty sure you understood my point. Brushing any behavior aside on the basis that people CAN engage in it is ludicrous, obviously. It’s a meaningless argument. “People have cameras and the internet, therefore anything goes” is as stupid and mean-spirited as the act itself.
So now we’re equating taking pictures of people to make fun of their poor life choices with murder, rape and theft? Someone needs a bit of therapy on this one.
Trivial is very much in the eye of the beholder. Those doing the pointing and laughing no doubt consider it trivial. Those being laughed at, likely not.
Are you suggesting that it should be illegal to post someone’s pic on the internet w/o their permission? Because all the things you’ve listed, above, are illegal.
If you are suggesting that, as a matter of etiquette, people should refrain from posting someone’s pic w/o permission, well I don’t think you’ll get much argument.
There are much worse things in this world than being humiliated a little bit about how you look in public and then LEARNING FROM IT and changing how you present yourself.
Just as common, if not more so, is making fun of people who are smarter than we are. Ever seen a poster quote an enlightened, cogent and factual post someone else has made, and then added only a rolley-eye smiley, as if that’s all the comment required? Ignorance isn’t just an empty space in a bookshelf: it’s usually an empty space in a bookshelf trowelled-full with wormy bullshit.
BTW, I like the thread title. Isn’t also the title of a large book about the history of Western Civilization over the last 500 years?
I posted those things in reference to the argument that that the fact that a thing is possible to do, we should just accept that people are going to do it. If that argument had validity, it would have to extend to everything, including the most extreme things.
I’m suggesting B, and it’s obvious I’m getting argument.
Based on the information available about the two people involved, the person photographed looking unattractive, and the person who photographed and published the unattractive looking person, I think the photographer is far more deserving of ridicule. Though I’m not a fan of ridicule directed at anyone for anything, if I have to vote, I vote we ridicule people for behavior they engage in that is directed at harming others.
Since you won’t tell use what the photo is, I’m going to operate under the assumption that no harm has been done to the fatty. I’m aware, of course, that this is not entirely different to the “my girlfriend won’t know what I get up to in Vegas, so no harm” school of thought, but seriously what’s your reason for thinking there’s any harm done at all?
P.S. I’m aware fat people know how to use the internet. It is, after all, an invention of anglo-american academics.