4 ms·
No, i don't see why. It is a long standing rule that posting photos about Scientology without their consent is ok. I don't what sense this rule would would mak
by fosap 14y ago
No, i don't see why. It is a long standing rule that posting photos about Scientology without their consent is ok.
I don't what sense this rule would would make. As long as nobody can google it (since no name) no one is hurt. So what?
- tptacek 14y agoI don't understand the equivalence between Scientologists and minors.
- fosap 14y agoThere is no difference. It's ok to posts photos without consent or it is not. Or tell me where you draw the line. /edit Or why the consent of a random 17 year old girl has more value that the consent of a random 20 year old guy working at a random CoS org.
- tptacek 14y agoI am drawing the line at compromising (sexualized, objectified, or deliberately embarrassing) photos of minors. So again, I don't see the equivalence.
- fosap 14y agoWhat is compromising? Photos of feet? Completely harmless to most people, for some better than tits. There is also a hair fetish. And probably there are a way more. Only post pictures of people wearing burkas?
- danielweber 14y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki%27s_Wager http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki%27s_Wager (boy it's hard to post a URL with a ' in it)
- danielweber 14y agoPeople have suggested various rules: - no sexual comments - no kids - no candid shots (where the subject is clearly not aware of the picture) There's plenty of lines that could be drawn there. Various people have played stupid that no combination of these rules simply couldn't work, but this isn't a brand new problem no one has wondered about before.