The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
There is a program on channel 4 at the moment talking about the subject.
Well, while we are all actually voyeurs, i.e. you see a nice looking female/male (by that I don’t mean a hermaphrodite), walking down the street in some tight jeans; you do turn and have another look.
But this program is showing the “hardcore” voyeurs. Now, I don’t mind people who are like-minded meeting up and watching each other, or taking pictures pretending that they don’t know, you know, fake voyeur, but this is showing how technology has impacted and now every 1 in 1000 women in the UK has probably been snapped in the nude.
Now, that may not sound like a large sum, but they are being snapped in places that are supposed to be private, dressing rooms and such. Also, just think, that 1 in 1000 could be your sister or mother or something.
What are your views on the whole thing?
Also, this is a family forum, but I think if handled maturely this subject can be discussed on here.
Well, while we are all actually voyeurs, i.e. you see a nice looking female/male (by that I don’t mean a hermaphrodite), walking down the street in some tight jeans; you do turn and have another look.
But this program is showing the “hardcore” voyeurs. Now, I don’t mind people who are like-minded meeting up and watching each other, or taking pictures pretending that they don’t know, you know, fake voyeur, but this is showing how technology has impacted and now every 1 in 1000 women in the UK has probably been snapped in the nude.
Now, that may not sound like a large sum, but they are being snapped in places that are supposed to be private, dressing rooms and such. Also, just think, that 1 in 1000 could be your sister or mother or something.
What are your views on the whole thing?
Also, this is a family forum, but I think if handled maturely this subject can be discussed on here.
Page:
I never leave the house without my SLR camera loaded with 1000 high-speed film and my 500mm telephoto zoom lens.
Hedfix wrote:
> Yes this is as far as I've gotten, so far, and quite frankly it's
> shocking.
>
> Coup?
It did turn the result of the election, because of it the election 'winner' is not president, and unelected man is.
It may not be in the same league of coups as you see in other parts of the world, but it didn't have to be. Some republicans did just what they had to in order to fix the election and prevent the democratically elected president taking office.
So the labels 'coup' and 'dictator' are really fairly accurate.
Rigging the procedure can be just as powerful as physically oppressing the opposition.
> Yes this is as far as I've gotten, so far, and quite frankly it's
> shocking.
>
> Coup?
It did turn the result of the election, because of it the election 'winner' is not president, and unelected man is.
It may not be in the same league of coups as you see in other parts of the world, but it didn't have to be. Some republicans did just what they had to in order to fix the election and prevent the democratically elected president taking office.
So the labels 'coup' and 'dictator' are really fairly accurate.
Rigging the procedure can be just as powerful as physically oppressing the opposition.
Hedfix wrote:
> I know this. But it's a blance to all the spin which occurs
> supporting the other view, and it's based in fact otherwise them an
> would be in jail right now for slander.
>
Although I doubt justice would prevail, lies always go unfixed,
still that is an excellent point, Michael Moore works invaluably against all the other, badder, spin.
> I know this. But it's a blance to all the spin which occurs
> supporting the other view, and it's based in fact otherwise them an
> would be in jail right now for slander.
>
Although I doubt justice would prevail, lies always go unfixed,
still that is an excellent point, Michael Moore works invaluably against all the other, badder, spin.
oh, I feel dirty just reading this post.
Sometimes I think it might be the methods used to research these things that are changing, rather than the number of people doing what the research suggests though.
Sometimes I think it might be the methods used to research these things that are changing, rather than the number of people doing what the research suggests though.
Bombay Duck wrote:
> Of course, an important part of his work in SWM was laying out facts.
> Florida election facts for example.
>
Yes this is as far as I've gotten, so far, and quite frankly it's shocking.
Coup?
> Of course, an important part of his work in SWM was laying out facts.
> Florida election facts for example.
>
Yes this is as far as I've gotten, so far, and quite frankly it's shocking.
Coup?
Electrum wrote:
> If anyone thinks that reading Michael Moore isnt just another way of
> making you think a certain way, it is.
>
I know this. But it's a blance to all the spin which occurs supporting the other view, and it's based in fact otherwise them an would be in jail right now for slander.
He might be selective with the truth, but what's there is still the truth.
> If anyone thinks that reading Michael Moore isnt just another way of
> making you think a certain way, it is.
>
I know this. But it's a blance to all the spin which occurs supporting the other view, and it's based in fact otherwise them an would be in jail right now for slander.
He might be selective with the truth, but what's there is still the truth.
On the original topic, I was surprised by peoples' general feeling that 'what the woman doesn't know won't hurt her'.
People have pointed out that extreme voyeurism can lead to other things to justify why we shouldn't consider it to be 'okay so long as you don't get caught'. ('Okay' in the moral sense as well as the practical sense that you go unpunished.)
You could also say that if someone has naked pictures of a woman, they could be used to her detriment without her knowing (eg, posted on the internet, seen by people who know her, they change their opinion of her or the way they treat her).
While both arguments may be valid (I'm not entirely convinced that the logic of the first is very strong. You could say that people shouldn't be allowed to drive, because driving is a 'gateway' to driving too fast, endangering lives. There needs to be more to associate the first 'acceptable' act with the second 'unacceptable' one, and it seems absurb to suggest that voyeurism is, on a sufficient level, that much of a path leading people to abduct or whatever else). Long brackets, I'll start the sentence again:
While both arguments *may* be valid, I suspect they are being pulled out as a way for people to argue the immorality of 'extreme' voyeurism, when the actual reason they feel it's immoral is because it's degrading and violates the.. voyee?
Even if she (or he) doesn't know about it, it's still an abuse of their rights.
Even if it doesn't directly 'harm' them, it's still not right.
IMHO, if you do something to someone, which they wouldn't want you to do if they knew about it, it's immoral and unjust in the same way as if they did know about it.
Whether it practically hurts them or not.
Maybe not immoral or unjust to the same extent, if it doesn't hurt them, part of that extent is probably tied to the degree of harm, but it's still an abuse of them in the same way.
If I steal money from some rich old bloke who'll never notice the money's gone and it won't affect how he lives out his life, I've still wronged him, I've still stolen from him, and I'm still criminally responsible for my crime.
It may not be as bad as stealing from a pensioner struggling to pay her heating bill, but I still deserve to be in prison or whatever.
People have pointed out that extreme voyeurism can lead to other things to justify why we shouldn't consider it to be 'okay so long as you don't get caught'. ('Okay' in the moral sense as well as the practical sense that you go unpunished.)
You could also say that if someone has naked pictures of a woman, they could be used to her detriment without her knowing (eg, posted on the internet, seen by people who know her, they change their opinion of her or the way they treat her).
While both arguments may be valid (I'm not entirely convinced that the logic of the first is very strong. You could say that people shouldn't be allowed to drive, because driving is a 'gateway' to driving too fast, endangering lives. There needs to be more to associate the first 'acceptable' act with the second 'unacceptable' one, and it seems absurb to suggest that voyeurism is, on a sufficient level, that much of a path leading people to abduct or whatever else). Long brackets, I'll start the sentence again:
While both arguments *may* be valid, I suspect they are being pulled out as a way for people to argue the immorality of 'extreme' voyeurism, when the actual reason they feel it's immoral is because it's degrading and violates the.. voyee?
Even if she (or he) doesn't know about it, it's still an abuse of their rights.
Even if it doesn't directly 'harm' them, it's still not right.
IMHO, if you do something to someone, which they wouldn't want you to do if they knew about it, it's immoral and unjust in the same way as if they did know about it.
Whether it practically hurts them or not.
Maybe not immoral or unjust to the same extent, if it doesn't hurt them, part of that extent is probably tied to the degree of harm, but it's still an abuse of them in the same way.
If I steal money from some rich old bloke who'll never notice the money's gone and it won't affect how he lives out his life, I've still wronged him, I've still stolen from him, and I'm still criminally responsible for my crime.
It may not be as bad as stealing from a pensioner struggling to pay her heating bill, but I still deserve to be in prison or whatever.
it's true what people say about one thing leads to the next for a voyeur. bes**t s**topped asap.
good topic EB, but i think my main point from reading the whole thread has already been said. there is an imbalance. if you touch a woman in anyway, you're in for sh*t, but the opposite is anything but true. there are many of these cases, but things will almos**t inevitably never change in these cases.
good topic EB, but i think my main point from reading the whole thread has already been said. there is an imbalance. if you touch a woman in anyway, you're in for sh*t, but the opposite is anything but true. there are many of these cases, but things will almos**t inevitably never change in these cases.
Of course, an important part of his work in SWM was laying out facts.
Florida election facts for example.
Still, you're right. That's true of any form of education or information.
I've thought about this before, a few times, and I've never really reached a satisfactory conclusion, beyond that it inevitably happens.
Florida election facts for example.
Still, you're right. That's true of any form of education or information.
I've thought about this before, a few times, and I've never really reached a satisfactory conclusion, beyond that it inevitably happens.
If anyone thinks that reading Michael Moore isnt just another way of making you think a certain way, it is.
He is telling you his opinion and you adapt it.
Exactly the same as Trisha, just in a better more intellectual light, it was written with intellectuals in mind after all.
Also the message he communicates is, well, better.
But still brainwashing in a way.
my advice is form your own opinions, if they happen to fit into a group then so be it,
or else be opinionless, which is boring but harmless.
Then again, what do I know...
He is telling you his opinion and you adapt it.
Exactly the same as Trisha, just in a better more intellectual light, it was written with intellectuals in mind after all.
Also the message he communicates is, well, better.
But still brainwashing in a way.
my advice is form your own opinions, if they happen to fit into a group then so be it,
or else be opinionless, which is boring but harmless.
Then again, what do I know...
Page: