Gawker found guilty in Hogan Case

[Gfted1]

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

 

Bruce, you do realize you're basically saying "I'd never do this because it's dysfunctional, and it's dysfunctional because I said so", right?

 

 

No as my opinion on this is shaped by 20 years of mistakes, regrets and wisdom 

 

Sorry but if you are happy to let your wife sleep with someone else then your marriage is dysfunctional 

 

 

Again, you're repeating a values judgment without attaching a reason to it. Why is it dysfunctional to not care about the sex life of another person?

 

 

Are you asking me why I think its wrong for a husband and wife to be fine with the wife sleeping with other men

 

Obviously.

 

 

alum before I forget are you still studying medicine and how long till you finish ?

 

Its a fairly complex answer so please bear with me while I explain a few things about me so you understand the context

 

I have  had some great and interesting life experiences and some that when I tell people they say " OMG....I'm so sorry " ...yet I have always at the end been able to eventually  rationalize and understand these bad experiences and when I look back I can say they made me  a better, confidant and ultimately happier  person. But there is NOTHING more annoying than some older person assuming they know more than a younger person, we  all need to go on our own journeys and find our own formula for fulfillment in life

 

Secondly I believe we should always see life as a journey where we can always learn more or improve our understanding of ourselves and the world around us. Of course certain things once you learn dont change like your job but most people get to a point where they feel they are so knowledgeable that they cant learn anything new and this is mostly about human interaction and the human psyche ...but the secret is anyone can teach something different and beneficial  if you are at least open to it ( this is applicable to you like it is to me...I hope you remember this when you older )

 

Now back to question, my experience has taught me  that in a relationship\marriage the most important thing is communication, everything else...and I mean everything else is secondary to this. People often think they communicate well with there partner but they dont really. Sometimes two people can be happy and yet they wont get to the level of communication I mean

 

Once you can communicate like I mean and both express your real wishes, fears and aspirations everything can be fixed. Your partner should be one of your best friends and love will naturally bloom based on  a real level of respect 

 

And in a relationship\marriage sex is often part of it, so if you take the communication and add sex you will also truly be able to fulfill each other. I use to associate with swingers, really nice people and very bright who use to tell me " real trust is swinging...because you trust your partner to have sex with other people but its not about love the sex "....even sexual therapists sometimes will advise " you can have a threesome or have other partners if agreed to if it will spice up the sex life ..as long as you understand boundaries "

 

But the real issue in both these examples is in fact communication...something is missing and even if these other things may seem to work they dont address the root cause

 

So there is no such thing as " a  man is okay with his wife sleeping with another man, even if he thinks he is fine with it " ...it shows and demonstrates a lack of real understanding to the root cause. So this Hogan thing, the wife was fine with it and Hogan was fine as he is a narcissistic. Yet neither the husband or the wife actually understand  that they have the issue and Hogan just feeds the illusion

 

So any marriage\ relationship where this is acceptable is not a sincere one as the couple aren't really communicating 

[Volourn]

"So there is no such thing as " a  man is okay with his wife sleeping with another man, even if he thinks he is fine with it "

 

Why do you think youa re able to make the call and tell someone else how they thinkj?

 

You are like the SJW white guy telling a black person who  pro GG how they have been brainwashed (like gamers have that kind of power lol) and how you SJW nazis are fighting for their rights.

 

Or the SJW Man telling a woman what to do with their body for their 'own good'. LMAO

[BruceVC]

 

Can  I ask you a question and please be honest as the feedback is important to me. From my side I consider you someone who I  have never had any issues having a debate with. I consider our forum interaction very healthy but how have you found me..am I rude at times, condescending? Or am I normal to you ?

 

 

Hi, you didn't ask me. Don't give a ****, here's my answer:

 

You remind me of my grandfather in some ways. He was absolutely spineless and followed orders to a ridiculous degree. Like I could tell him to go punch my father in the face and the only thing that would stop him from doing so is if my father ordered him NOT to punch him in the face before it happened, at which point he could order him to come murder me and I better hope I get a chance to give an order before it happens. Think this was his coping mechanism to absolve himself of any guilt from having been a Nazi. Dunno the details but sounds like he worked a machine gun and gunned down a LOT of people, so I imagine it left him with some serious scars.

 

But you don't come across as spineless in that sense. You come across as so god damned absorbed with your image and with being a good person that you as a person have little substance to your name. You do things based on how good they're perceived to be, with that actually taking precedence over your own impulses and gut feelings. I mean sure enough, here you are defending Gawker when some of their own workers and witnesses worked against them in court all because Gawker says progressive stuff and progressive = good right? So opposition = bad? And you're failing at objective thought as you sit here focusing on Hulk Hogan as if that has **** all to do with this. Dude if Hitler has a sex tape leaked, Hitler still has a right to a trial. There is no "yeah but you stole a wallet that time so nope the court system never helps you."

 

 

 

But let's not focus on that so much, cause this is about you. You focus on being perceived as good, you don't seem to react on your ACTUAL thoughts, opinions or emotions. No, you silence those. Great example: I will confess that I am very cautious around the transgender community because probably a third of the transgender individuals I've met are damned crazy, in my opinion. They'll look in a mirror and see the sexiest woman alive, complimenting themselves, then ask for a compliment and I'll be sitting there thinking "dude I can see your ****ing adam's apple and you still have a man-jaw, let's be real here." I also think one should acknowledge that biology IS going to work against transgender individuals in the sense that, for example, biology is smart: what men consider a nice ass is often a sign a woman can provide safe childbirth, and did you know attractive people tend to have higher IQs? Your body tries to advertise all it's strengths and problems: there's an evolutionary reason why warts or a bad scent will disgust people for example. And for transgender individuals? Your body is gonna recognize "something is wrong." It won't feel disgust (usually), it won't feel anger or hate, but it DAMNED WELL won't feel attraction. As such, if I meet a transgender individual that can calmly admit to being transgender and understand they stand out like a sore thumb and rarely (if ever) attract their desired gender, but the gender swap makes them feel better all the same? More power to these people. The ones I've met that seem to be living in this fantasy world where OMG IM A WOMAN NOW AND EVERYONE THINKS I LOOK FEMININE AND I MUST NEVER ACKNOWLEDGE MY PAST NAME AGAIN!!! Yeah, they can gtfo. I keep my distance from these individuals not because transgender individuals bother me, but because delusional individuals bother me (I've met women who've attempted to lie to me and others about their fake boobs; same **** here, that bothers me), and sadly the delusion quota in the transgender community - in my experience - has been high. Nowhere near a majority, but still high. I've met three such individuals in my lifetime, which is three more than I cared to meet.

 

  I do not think my reaction is abnormal, offensive or strange. I just explained to you my reasoning, I in no way think anything I said was unreasonable. At no point did I state I was against transgender individuals or their rights; they deserve all of that. All the same, yes if I meet a transgender individual, I'm gonna be asking in my head if this is gonna be a normal one of a "I AM THE MOST BEAUTIFUL WOMAN EVER I WAS NEVER A MAN WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT" one. And the moment I get a hint of the latter type, I'm gone.

 

Now let's talk about you: I can imagine you having the same impulses where you see a transgender individual and your mind/body reacts with a "NOPE." That's natural. But what I can't imagine is that you'd admit to this....actually I could imagine you saying it now that I've brought it up solely for the sake of trying to come across as relateable, but admitting to it on your own, without someone else provoking it out of you? No, you'd claim there's no issue whatsoever, because you wanna be a good person. You'd NEVER admit to anything that can remotely resemble prejudice, because what would people think!! You've gotta continue trying to look like the nicest, most morally good person ever! And so you lie. You lie to yourself, you lie to others. You convince yourself you don't have these impulses, you tell everyone those impulses don't exist. But in doing so, you fail to sit down and critically ask yourself who you are, what makes you tick and why you think the way you do. On two seperate occassions, I have respectfully confessed my "prejudices" towards the transgender community to a transgender individual. On both cases, we had a meaningful discussion that helped me understand myself and the transgender community better. The second individual was even happy to hear me say what I said, and then began complaining that so many people now "fetishize" or use the transgender community for political statements without understanding them themselves. They'll sit there and claim ridiculous things like anyone who doesn't find a transgender person attractive is a prejudice bigot, or they'll attempt to downplay how serious a gender change is, the result being that actual experts or support groups are sometimes laughable because they've been fed bull**** by some hipster SJWs who just said **** to make the trans community feel more accepted rather than speaking about what they truly are and what problems they truly face. (wish I could recall the exact details, sadly this convo took place two years ago)

 

 

I'm not afraid to admit to any thought that goes through my mind because what purpose is there in ever lying to myself? When I was 14 I saw a documentary on an assassination attempt on Adolf Hitler. In it, they determined a table leg saved Hitler's life by diminishing how much of a blast from a suitcase bomb hit him. To try and make everyone feel better about those terrible results, one of the German war veterans in attendance said they think Hitler had to survive that, because he believed that had Hitler died that day, he would've died a hero rather than a villain, because this was before his artocities came to light.

  That blew my mind. The idea that the guy who's synonymous with the word "evil" almost died a hero...? Blew my mind. It made me realize...do my friends like me, or do they only like the ILLUSION of me that I've presented? Of course I only show them my best traits, of course I hide my worst....but what's the point in that? I do want to be judged. I do want people to know who I truly am, and that way, I can know if people truly like and agree with me or not. Even if the world determined I was a terrible person, all the same I am who I am and I should be proud of who I am, and wear my personality on my sleeve like a badge of pride.

 

 

....Then there's you. Sometimes I read your post and I feel like you're my antithesis. I get the sense that you and I are, in many ways, complete opposites. Every post of yours is so polite it could make school children nauceous. Every single discussion has to end peacefully or on a good note or it'll bother the hell out of you. At all times, you have to remind people you're progressive, you care about women (weird to me that it's ALWAYS women) and you're a good person. I look at that and say what point is there in forcing a convo to end on a good note? You can't do that; you're kidding yourself and lying to yourself, because if a convo ends on a bad note, it ends on a bad note. And the constant reminders about how much you care about women or in this case, the workers at Gawker, just comes off as total bull. In my mind, you're either a troll, or you're a sad little man who is so haunted by fears that people might perceive you as a bad person or that you ARE a bad person, that you let those exact fears govern your every opinion, to the point where the opinion forms before the reasoning behind the opinion has even made sense in your brain. Hey, what I'm saying may hurt, but it's called "honesty," and as I've said you can learn a lot from it.

 

 

Every post you make comes across as the most fake, disingenuine thing ever. You're like the definition of those guys that ask "how was your day" purely for the politeness of it but don't actually care or pay attention to the answer. I mean I have no doubt that you're gonna respond to this post with something along the lines of "oh ok this is a very helpful post and I thank you for your input!" What I do doubt is if you actually read it. So many of your posts are just empty statements that fail to say anything beyond "good point." You never explain why or how, you never explain your reasoning, you never provide evidence you actually read or comprehended what anyone says to you, you never do anything. And hell, you never voice criticism ever unless it's deemed allowable by your weird overly-progressive moral compass.

So yeah, if I'm being as frank as possible, you seem like a sad individual who is living your life letting the opinions of others govern who you are and how you should act, all out of fear of being perceived as bad or evil or something. You hear "WOMEN GOOD, MEN BAD" and repeat it like a friggin' caveman without being able to explain ANY of the reasons behind your logic, and why? Because one they're not logical and two it's not YOUR false logic to begin with. You just parrot all the "good karma" political stances you've heard without bothering to comprehend them (if that's even possible), and that's evident by how poorly you argue them....if at all. As I said, your posts are nonstop empty statements devoid of any substance, and it always seems evident that you're more concerned with your image and seeming like a good person than you are in....well, actually having a god damned debate.

 

 

Seriously though, here's a challenge for you: quote one post for me in this entire thread where you actually make an argument. You'll find that all of your arguments are "I don't think so." That's it. You just disagree without stating why. Anyone else on these forums, whether I agree with them or not, I can expect them to explain to me why they think the way they do. But you? You cannot even back up any of your own stances or beliefs, and I'm personally of the opinion your opinion about Gawker "changed" not because we actually convinced you, but because you noticed you were the ONLY person in the entirety of the forums that was opting to defend them, thus you perceived what you're doing must be "bad" and caved not because you actually listened to anything anyone said, but because for you, life is just a desperate attempt to be perceived as a good person.

 

Well I'll tell you, it's not working. I've said before, quite frankly, that I don't respect your opinions, because as I just pointed out, I don't think your opinions have any reasoning behind them. Why would I give time of day to a person who has their opinions solely due to peer pressure or some other weird social phenomina with their thinking pattern? I respect those who can say "I am against strong criminal charges for false rape accusations because A, B, and C," not those who say "I am against strong criminal charges for false rape accusations because it is wrong and I have always been a nice man who respects women and is concerned with achieving equality for them."

 

Nothing that you say makes anyone think "wow what a nice guy!" Infact I'm often sitting here thinking "wow what a fruit" or "Bruce is the poster child for that saying 'Don't be too open-minded or your brain will fall out.'" I also think there's probably a lot of people that think you can be rather passive aggressive, which if you didn't know, can be a very ugly personality trait to have.

 

 

 

Yes that's a wall of text, and yes that's a wall of text that neither you nor anyone else asked for. All the same, I posted it because quite frankly, if you go through this thread, it's "Everyone else vs. Bruce's drunk-as-hell moral compass." Half the thread is you grasping at straws and attempting to downplay Gawker's horrendous acts. And why? Because they're on your "side" and they're "good progressives." ....That's another pet peeve of mine: people that blindly defend others on their "side" without actually asking if they agree with that person or group whatsoever. But I've ranted enough. Point is that quite frankly I think you irritate the ever-living hell out of a lot of people, it's just some are more reluctant than others to say it.

 

Thanks for being honest, I always ask for honesty yet no one ever seems to go into detail and I can promise you I am not offended at all. Its fascinating what you write, most of it is wrong but its amazing you see me like that..but I understand why you have the wrong impression

 

My issue is my posting etiquette is the same as I am in RL, in other words if we met in person then you would understand me and like me I promise you. I joke sometimes in RL and this is understood but not on forums hence the constant misunderstandings about what motivates me . Most of you guys follow normal Internet protocol and etiquette but I can only  be one person and that is how I am in RL. I didnt realize I came across as always saying the right thing.....people have called me condescending ?

 

So as much as I understand your view of me and I appreciate the effort its misplaced and you have  the wrong  impression because most people dont follow RL etiquette on a forum so I doubt we will ever understand each other and thats fine ...as long as we can debate just never assume I'm trolling, I can answer anything you ask me

 

So in summary, you think I'm false to compensate for some RL insecurity but I'm actually exactly who I am in RL

 

And once again thanks for being honest

[BruceVC]

Not all all...please dont close this thread down I really appreciate the feedback

[BruceVC]

"No offense but you  are blinded to the obvious injustice, you are fine he can sue Gawker because you dont like Gawker but the fact he had an affair with his friend wife you seem to ignore. So for me its you that  have your priorities wrong"

 

Offense attended, you need to get your priorities straight. Hogan's moral 'failings' are irrelevant and do not excuse Gawker's immoral and obviously illegal doings. Also, as mentioned above, Hogan and co's actions were chocies made by consenting adults. Gawker and their coconspirators took choice out of others' hands. That is evil.

 

Also, get off your moral high horse. You have no empathy at all. Again, the only difference here is that Hogan is a man and not a woman. I guarantee that you and your SJW cohorts would no doubt have a different reaction if he happened to be a woman.

 

I thought SJW were about 'feelz'? I would think you would be happy that the law sides with supporting Hogan's hurt 'feelz' than Gawker's  evil pursuit of greed.

So once again what Hogan did is worse, in life we can only control our own moral decisions....no one else to blame 

 

But Gawker is a company, its not living and its driven by profit. A bad decision by a human will normally always be worse than an objective of profit 

 

No I feel almost nothing for Hogan? Why do you keep asking me to feel something?

 

Well yes SJ is about feelz but it has to be meaningful ...and I cant  fake it 

[BruceVC]

"So there is no such thing as " a  man is okay with his wife sleeping with another man, even if he thinks he is fine with it "

 

Why do you think youa re able to make the call and tell someone else how they thinkj?

 

You are like the SJW white guy telling a black person who  pro GG how they have been brainwashed (like gamers have that kind of power lol) and how you SJW nazis are fighting for their rights.

 

Or the SJW Man telling a woman what to do with their body for their 'own good'. LMAO

Yes I'll make that call and stand by it, I have explained why

 

Why are you thinking we get married and you worried you may cheat on me....Ill forgive you once but not twice 

[Gfted1]

Not all all...please dont close this thread down I really appreciate the feedback

Its just a spin on "Well that escalated quickly".

[Amentep]

 

 

Hogan and his even more immoral friends, the wife and husband., did something for themselves....not for someone else,its worse what Hogan did

Are you seriously saying that something between consenting adults is "worse" than something done without consent?

 

Because AFAIK Hogan and Heather Clem were consenting adults in what they did but they did not consent to being filmed or to having said film distributed by Gawker.

 

Yes for me much worse, this is a subjective judgement

 

I have been very lucky in life, I have always had very good guy friends, I mean we share everything about ourselves and we completely trust each other and can rely on each other. Some of friends I have been friends with for 15-20 years 

 

Most of my friends are married or have serious girlfriends and I am also always very good friends with the ladies ..but its a real respect and friendship that is outside my male friends. I was raised in a matriarch society and I really appreciate my friendships with women, in fact I often enjoy doing things with women that most men would find boring, in other words " women things "

 

But for a man to be true friends with a  women he has to learn to not act on any physical attraction if it surfaces , its fine to be attracted to a lady friend but you must control how you respond. So there was and always is  immense trust between me and all my guy friends about there lady partners, for example my friend would go away for a month for work and I would come down from JHB and stay with his fiancee for weekends. We would party together, sleep in the same house and even the same bed but there was never anything that made the situation uncomfortable 

 

The level of trust was unequivocal and this only made our 3 friendships more durable . So when I hear about someone who is prepared to let his wife sleep with someone like Hogan I lose immense respect for how dysfunctional that relationship really is...despite the fact they probably think " we have a open relationship which makes us stronger as a couple " 

 

Get divorced and then sleep with who you want....but seriously a wife and her husband being happy with that is just .....appalling for me

 

So yes what Hogan did was morally worse, spiritually worse and a mockery of what a marriage is 

 

 

So you are applying a value judgement to their actions and I guess because you find their actions to be "morally wrong" you think Gawker is okay to show the sex without their consent because they were doing something you consider morally wrong?

 

But, I'd argue, two wrongs don't make a right.  It makes two wrong.  But in Hogan's case, sleeping with another man's wife isn't illegal, videotaping them in private and distributing without their permission is.

 

(As an aside, I'm not entirely sure why you are arguing about men & women being true friends; there's not any indication I know of that implies that Hogan's goal was to be Heather's friend, true or not).

[BruceVC]

 

Not all all...please dont close this thread down I really appreciate the feedback

Its just a spin on "Well that escalated quickly".

 

Can I ask you something, what LK wrote explains why I get some negativity I have never understood 

 

You have known me and misunderstood me for ages as well but you always polite. How do you see my posting etiquette, do you agree with him and  what would you add if wanted to?

 

And please be honest as I cant change who I am in RL but I still appreciate the feedback 

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

Hogan and his even more immoral friends, the wife and husband., did something for themselves....not for someone else,its worse what Hogan did

Are you seriously saying that something between consenting adults is "worse" than something done without consent?

 

Because AFAIK Hogan and Heather Clem were consenting adults in what they did but they did not consent to being filmed or to having said film distributed by Gawker.

 

Yes for me much worse, this is a subjective judgement

 

I have been very lucky in life, I have always had very good guy friends, I mean we share everything about ourselves and we completely trust each other and can rely on each other. Some of friends I have been friends with for 15-20 years 

 

Most of my friends are married or have serious girlfriends and I am also always very good friends with the ladies ..but its a real respect and friendship that is outside my male friends. I was raised in a matriarch society and I really appreciate my friendships with women, in fact I often enjoy doing things with women that most men would find boring, in other words " women things "

 

But for a man to be true friends with a  women he has to learn to not act on any physical attraction if it surfaces , its fine to be attracted to a lady friend but you must control how you respond. So there was and always is  immense trust between me and all my guy friends about there lady partners, for example my friend would go away for a month for work and I would come down from JHB and stay with his fiancee for weekends. We would party together, sleep in the same house and even the same bed but there was never anything that made the situation uncomfortable 

 

The level of trust was unequivocal and this only made our 3 friendships more durable . So when I hear about someone who is prepared to let his wife sleep with someone like Hogan I lose immense respect for how dysfunctional that relationship really is...despite the fact they probably think " we have a open relationship which makes us stronger as a couple " 

 

Get divorced and then sleep with who you want....but seriously a wife and her husband being happy with that is just .....appalling for me

 

So yes what Hogan did was morally worse, spiritually worse and a mockery of what a marriage is 

 

 

So you are applying a value judgement to their actions and I guess because you find their actions to be "morally wrong" you think Gawker is okay to show the sex without their consent because they were doing something you consider morally wrong?

 

But, I'd argue, two wrongs don't make a right.  It makes two wrong.  But in Hogan's case, sleeping with another man's wife isn't illegal, videotaping them in private and distributing without their permission is.

 

(As an aside, I'm not entirely sure why you are arguing about men & women being true friends; there's not any indication I know of that implies that Hogan's goal was to be Heather's friend, true or not).

 

Yes thats a good way of putting it, what Hogan did is more morally wrong than Gawker 

 

But for me he gets caught doing something morally wrong and suddenly he wants " to sue ":

 

And he won ...against a gossip magazine, he became richer by being part of an immoral act by having sex with the wife of his friend ..I'm sorry but even saying it out loud makes me feel uncomfortable

[Amentep]

Yes thats a good way of putting it, what Hogan did is more morally wrong than Gawker 

 

But for me he gets caught doing something morally wrong and suddenly he wants " to sue ":

 

And he won ...against a gossip magazine, he became richer by being part of an immoral act by having sex with the wife of his friend ..I'm sorry but even saying it out loud makes me feel uncomfortable

 

To be honest, to me, it sounds like you're victim blaming.  You seem to be a step away from suggesting that because he was doing something you find morally wrong that he was "asking for it" to be secretly filmed and distributed online.

[BruceVC]

@ Longknife 

 

Do you mind if I show my friends and family what you wrote?

 

 

Its not to mock you I just want to show them how I can be misunderstood on the Internet, they will laugh I promise?

[majestic]

Bruce, stop making me agree with Volo.

[Gfted1]

Can I ask you something, what LK wrote explains why I get some negativity I have never understood 

 

You have known me and misunderstood me for ages as well but you always polite. How do you see my posting etiquette, do you agree with him and  what would you add if wanted to?

 

And please be honest as I cant change who I am in RL but I still appreciate the feedback

Youre all good with me, BVC.

[BruceVC]

 

Yes thats a good way of putting it, what Hogan did is more morally wrong than Gawker 

 

But for me he gets caught doing something morally wrong and suddenly he wants " to sue ":

 

And he won ...against a gossip magazine, he became richer by being part of an immoral act by having sex with the wife of his friend ..I'm sorry but even saying it out loud makes me feel uncomfortable

 

To be honest, to me, it sounds like you're victim blaming.  You seem to be a step away from suggesting that because he was doing something you find morally wrong that he was "asking for it" to be secretly filmed and distributed online.

 

No if I had found out what he did I would have been equally appalled 

 

I live my life by a certain moral code that may seem inconsistent but I can explain any part of it 

 

Of course Gawker is a trash company but thats not its fault....its aspects of society that want this and they created it 

 

But I cant blame Gawker, its like a automaton..its has no real choice

 

But 3 consenting adults who agree to what happened ...no they made there bed 

[BruceVC]

Bruce, stop making me agree with Volo.

 

Whats wrong with agreeing with Volo ....he makes good points sometimes but this is something he just doesnt understand 

[BruceVC]

 

Can I ask you something, what LK wrote explains why I get some negativity I have never understood 

 

You have known me and misunderstood me for ages as well but you always polite. How do you see my posting etiquette, do you agree with him and  what would you add if wanted to?

 

And please be honest as I cant change who I am in RL but I still appreciate the feedback

Youre all good with me, BVC.

 

Thanks

[Amentep]

No if I had found out what he did I would have been equally appalled 

 

I live my life by a certain moral code that may seem inconsistent but I can explain any part of it 

 

Of course Gawker is a trash company but thats not its fault....its aspects of society that want this and they created it 

 

But I cant blame Gawker, its like a automaton..its has no real choice

 

But 3 consenting adults who agree to what happened ...no they made there bed

 

So as long as you deem the activity "morally repugnant" Gawker is okay to film it in secret and post it on the internet?

• Guy murders another guy and Gawker has secret film footage and neither guys permission: Okay to post, murder is morally repugnant.
• Guy rapes a woman and Gawker has secret film footage and neither the rapist nor the woman's permission: Okay to post, rape is morally repugnant.

Do you not see how goofy it is to absolve Gawker of its own responsibility because the "secret film footage" was of an action you, personally, find morally repugnant?

[BruceVC]

 

No if I had found out what he did I would have been equally appalled 

 

I live my life by a certain moral code that may seem inconsistent but I can explain any part of it 

 

Of course Gawker is a trash company but thats not its fault....its aspects of society that want this and they created it 

 

But I cant blame Gawker, its like a automaton..its has no real choice

 

But 3 consenting adults who agree to what happened ...no they made there bed

 

So as long as you deem the activity "morally repugnant" Gawker is okay to film it in secret and post it on the internet?

• Guy murders another guy and Gawker has secret film footage and neither guys permission: Okay to post, murder is morally repugnant.
• Guy rapes a woman and Gawker has secret film footage and neither the rapist nor the woman's permission: Okay to post, rape is morally repugnant.

Do you not see how goofy it is to absolve Gawker of its own responsibility because the "secret film footage" was of an action you, personally, find morally repugnant?

 

But I am not absolving Gawker and I look at things on a per case basis as far as my moral code is concerned. And both murder and rape would be seen differently 

 

 

I am saying in the case of a man allowing his wife, or his wife wanting to, have sex with someone like Hogan that is morally wrong and then greater evil than Gawker

 

L

[Amentep]

 

But I cant blame Gawker

 

 

But I am not absolving Gawker

really?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

But I cant blame Gawker

 

 

 

But I am not absolving Gawker

 

really?

Look who you're arguing with. Are you really surprised they're inconsistent?

[Amentep]

 

 

But I cant blame Gawker

 

 

But I am not absolving Gawker

really?

Look who you're arguing with. Are you really surprised they're inconsistent?

 

 

I know Bruce can be mercurial, but really this seemed an inconsistency worth pointing out.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

But I cant blame Gawker

 

 

But I am not absolving Gawker

really?

Look who you're arguing with. Are you really surprised they're inconsistent?

 

 

I know Bruce can be mercurial, but really this seemed an inconsistency worth pointing out.

 

Amentep please dont sink to KP level of debate with me ,,,despite all my efforts with him he still misunderstands me

 

There is no contradiction in what I said because both those sentences came from different posts so they need to be looked in context 

 

" I cant blame Gawker " was about Gawker printing the video thinking what  a good scoop this was ....this is there nature like a greedy dog 

 

" I am not absolving Gawker " was about the fact I did say they were trash but compared to Hogan its not as bad

 

 

I like word mercurial, people dont often use it ...I like capricious 

[Amentep]

I'm sorry but as far as I can tell those two statements are inconsistent, either Gawker did right, or they did wrong.  You say you "can't blame Gawker" because Gawker is a trash media outlet - you are then absolving them of guilt, and you're absolving them of responsibility for their actions.

 

Blame (v) assign responsibility for a fault or wrong.

Absolve (v) to make (someone) free from guilt, responsibility, etc.

Guilt (N) responsibility for a crime or for doing something bad or wrong

 

You are saying "I can't assign responsibility for wrong to Gawker, but I also can't make them free from responsibility and guilt for doing something wrong".  That's not consistent, and IMO its a terribly goofy position to take (particularly when you've already acknowledged in a previous post that Gawker wouldn't have the right to broadcast more "morally wrong" videos of murder and rape).

 

I get it, you don't like Hogan and you don't think he's a morally good person.  Lots of people agree with you.  But that doesn't allow him to be a victim of a criminal act and not receive justice of some kind.

 

PS - I like mercurial too.  Capricious has more negative connotations to me (but that may be a context I provide than is there).