2 ms·
> They could have been the focus of the photo and I still think it would have been morally acceptable to post it. No. No it wouldn't have been. You have absol
by nullindividual 3y ago
> They could have been the focus of the photo and I still think it would have been morally acceptable to post it.
No. No it wouldn't have been.
You have absolutely zero need to post any picture online. It is a choice; a choice to further humliate the individual, possibly even causing them greater distress.
People who post pictures with justification like yours have caused those who are the target of the cruelty to commit suicide.
You do not need to post anything on social media. You choose to do so. And by choosing to post an embarrassing moment, you are the problem and you are morally in the wrong.
- yosito 3y ago> No it wouldn't have been. What if I catch an off duty cop on camera assaulting a person of color? Is it immoral to post that online? Where do you draw the line about which public acts should be moral to show in public?
- nullindividual 3y agoYou've moved the goal posts from embarrassing behavior (smoking) to an illegal act. Try again.
- yosito 3y agoThe goal post was "doing something that they didn't want shared on social media". I didn't move anything.
- nullindividual 3y agoWhere in Western society do we consider an embarrassing act the same as an illegal act that may also be embarrassing? My reaction to someone smoking is going to be "gross". My reaction to someone getting a DUI is going far, far beyond that, despite how embarrassing it is for the individual who received the DUI.
- plagiarist 3y ago"And if you personally cannot draw a perfectly sharp line assigning every event to one of two groups, then no line exists and everything must be in one or the other!"
- brewdad 3y agoIf you are so against posting on social platforms, why are you posting here? You don’t need to post anything.