Where's your ETHICS, kiddies?

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: namelesss

Your still jumping through hoops to get to your goal. Problem is that none of the evidence was supposed to exist in the first place.

I thought that you were stomping off in a huff?
You are still missing the entire point.
Lack of ethics is like that.

Let me offer you an example of 'ethics' so you'll have some clue what I'm saying;
"Do not do to others what you would not have others do to you!"
Do you understand how that relates to all this stolen private email?
If you cannot, we'll just have to let it go.

a reply to: namelesss

I'll try again to set you straight. Lets start here.

noun

1.

(used with a singular or plural verb) a system of moral principles:
the ethics of a culture.

2.

(used with a plural verb) the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.:
medical ethics; Christian ethics.

3.

(used with a plural verb) moral principles, as of an individual:
His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.

4.

(used with a singular verb) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.
Compare axiological ethics, deontological ethics.

Ethics come from the individual. They are as different as the person who is owning them. You seem to think that everyone else should feel as you do that exposing the emails of someone else is unethical. Well that's up to the individual as you have been shown throughout this thread.

You also seem to want to crossover into legality. If the chains are verifiable, they are admissible in court, thus making them legal no?

"If your doing something that you don't want anyone knowing about; perhaps you should not be doing it."

a reply to: namelesss

Why are you attempting to dismiss reasonable argument as simple dissembling?

It is not.

I am simply stating that the situation is not black and white, precisely because the people who are threatened by the release of this information are not playing by the rules either, while using those same rules to hide their misdeeds.

What I would like to know, is whether you believe, now that the truth is out about the contents of these communications, that the crime of releasing them is greater than the hoodwink they show to have been perpetrated against the people of the country.

a reply to: namelesss

Who is to say my emails are not already being read? Didn't Snowdeon open that can of worms a few years ago?

So what's good for them is bad for us? The telling thing is that nobody is beating my door down with evidence that I'm a criminal.

There's no privacy whether we like it or not, legal or not. The filthy black hand doesn't like it when their own nasty tactics are used against them.

You speak of ethics...regardless of how proof is obtained, if you know someone is a pedophile and neglect to act you've no business speaking of ethics or morals as you're completely bereft of either.

We grade crimes based on seriousness...a murderer tends to get more time than a petty thief.

You're painting a scenario where someone 'obtains' information via 'illegal' means, and because of hte methods used to prove the most terrible of crimes - the information thief is chastised more than a child raping pervert...I find it hilarious that you speak of morals and ethics.

You appear to have a split personality. Look at your avatar and it's all chakra and light crap, read your posts and there's a murky darkness in content and tone. And quite aggressive and confrontational at best.

Strange.

On a personal note - I honestly don't care who reads my junk emails. I was neve really under the impression that they were ever private, were you? Have you even the slightest inkling of the nature of digital data and how easy it is for some people to snoop on your assumed 'privacy'?

you probably think your mobile phone is secure and that you have 'privacy' when you use it...which is funny as *bleep*

Like them morons what reckon the junk they share openly on facebook should be both public and private at the same time.

Read my emails...who cares? If I was so paranoid about hiding something I wouldn't put it in an email because it's retarded.

If 100% proof was found that obama is purchasing viagra and some idiot hacked his emails and leaked that info...yeah, I'd be like - clown, lock that moron up. If same hacker found evidence that obama was kiddie fiddling or something...I'd be thankful.

It's all fair game with people who are doing this type of thing...unlike you, apparently - I actually want people like that to be exposed and punished...not allowed to walk away scot free because the evidence wasn't obtsained via the proper channels. If we allowed that to happen then the concept of morals and ethics may aswell be abolished as they're meaningless.

I don't think there's a conflict here. If there were laws broken by those who originally obtained those emails, then I would not close the door to the possibility of bringing those people up on charges. Regardless, I don't think it diminishes the content of the emails themselves, which have not been denied by the campaign. I don't know if they're admissible in court. In the context of public opinion, it doesn't matter, because public opinion is not a courtroom and people have the right to form their opinions how they see fit.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: namelesss

Why are you attempting to dismiss reasonable argument as simple dissembling?

It is not.

I am simply stating that the situation is not black and white, precisely because the people who are threatened by the release of this information are not playing by the rules either, while using those same rules to hide their misdeeds.

What I would like to know, is whether you believe, now that the truth is out about the contents of these communications, that the crime of releasing them is greater than the hoodwink they show to have been perpetrated against the people of the country.

It's sophistry at it's worst - or finest I guess depending on who's ox is being gored.

The OP is utter bollocks.

originally posted by: ThreeDots
a reply to: namelesss

Who is to say my emails are not already being read? Didn't Snowdeon open that can of worms a few years ago?

Stealing from a thief is still stealing.

So what's good for them is bad for us?

If everybody jumped off the cliff, will you?
Circumstances come and go, but 'ethics' is completely transcendental of all 'conditions'.
Ethics is born of the eternality of unconditional Love!
Yes, there will be many times that you will be 'bucking the crowd', but another Virtue of Love, is Faith/Knowledge.

The telling thing is that nobody is beating my door down with evidence that I'm a criminal.

There's no privacy whether we like it or not, legal or not. The filthy black hand doesn't like it when their own nasty tactics are used against them.

Circumstances...

You speak of ethics...regardless of how proof is obtained, if you know someone is a pedophile and neglect to act you've no business speaking of ethics or morals as you're completely bereft of either.

More circumstances, with 'appeal to emotion' fallacy sauce. *__-

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: namelesss

Why are you attempting to dismiss reasonable argument as simple dissembling?

It is not.

I am simply stating that the situation is not black and white, precisely because the people who are threatened by the release of this information are not playing by the rules either, while using those same rules to hide their misdeeds.

Ethics seem rather 'black and white'. What would a 'semi-ethical' situation be?
Ethics are "don't do to others what you wouldn't want done to you!"
It is an unconditional Virtue of unconditional Love.
Unmoved by passing 'conditions'...
Would I want my stolen emails read by you? My stolen private stuff?
Would you want that done to your privacy?
There's no 'semi-' in there, is there?

What I would like to know, is whether you believe, now that the truth is out about the contents of these communications, that the crime of releasing them is greater than the hoodwink they show to have been perpetrated against the people of the country.

Ethics transcends all such duality/conditions, Love is unconditional. *__-

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: namelesss

I'll try again to set you straight. Lets start here.

noun

1.

(used with a singular or plural verb) a system of moral principles:
the ethics of a culture.

Your definition is at odds with my experience.
People who write dictionaries do not know/experience every word in the fullness of it's experience! *__-
They mostly repeat the same slowly crumbling definitions/understandings of Reality, generation after generation, eventually to evolve, when finally giving birth, in a great spasm of pain and joy, into the 'future' updated to today's understandings of Reality!
Due to examined evidence, I regret that We are unable to accept your all too entirely Catholic definitions.
'Morality' is the 'opposite' of 'ethics'.
They are often conflated.

From a religious Perspective (and a dictionary), 'morality' is judging people/stuff as 'good' or 'bad/evil'!
The 'stolen 'forbidden fruit of Pride', ego.. the exercise thereof being 'sin'.

The ego distinguishes between 'this' and 'that', is 'conditional'.

Unconditional Love, on the other hand, is.. 'unconditional'!
Completely transcendent of any and all passing 'conditions'.
It is in unconditional Love that you find the unconditional Virtue of Faith.

2.

(used with a plural verb) the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.:
medical ethics; Christian ethics.

Morality, ,sin, conditional...

3.

(used with a plural verb) moral principles, as of an individual:
His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.

Again, the ignorant conflation of the judgment of morality and the ethics of Love.

...

Ethics come from the individual.

Yes and no...

They are as different as the person who is owning them.

Many Perspectives describe One Reality! *__-
And no one 'owns' a Perspective, We ARE Perspectives!

You seem to think that everyone else should feel as you do that exposing the emails of someone else is unethical.

Oh no, I bring it much closer to home!
The question regards reading them.
Are they meant, legally/ethically, for your eyes?
Would you want someone to perhaps judge 'you' based on reading your stolen private emails.
A court wouldn't allow such illegally seized 'evidence'.

You also seem to want to crossover into legality. If the chains are verifiable, they are admissible in court, thus making them legal no?

I'm no lawyer, but if at any point in the chain of possession, it is found that they were illegally obtained, that point loses it's legal validity. Becomes hearsay at best.
But the point for ethics is would you have it done to you?!
And I'm thinking that darn few would want it done to them.
To do it anyway is, thus, unethical.

"If your doing something that you don't want anyone knowing about; perhaps you should not be doing it."

That's how I operate.
I Know that All is Known, there are no 'secrets', and I harbor no 'expectations' of 'privacy'.
Knowledge is on a 'need to Know' basis. Not everyone needs to (can) know everything.
Knowledge at all and any cost, without ethics, gives us barbarism and the tortures of the insane.
Unethical people get elected because unethical people vote for them!

But that wasn't the question, is it? *__-

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: namelesss

I would sell my body for the truth. In a world of lies...nothing else matters.

The problem is...nobody is willing buy this body.

I'll give you $3.00!
As of Sunday, my Jeep needs a whole new body! WHAM! *__-

a reply to: namelesss

And the truth sir ?

A transaction requires both parties being settled.

originally posted by: Riffrafter
originally posted by: namelesss
Probably because at at he end of the day what most people really care about is truth.

That is a highly debatable premise!
Rather than seeking 'truth', I'd say that most rather find the nacho cheese for their chips.
Or a more comfortable chair.
Or justification' for our 'beliefs' and 'biases' and (ignorant and self-justifying opinions). We are not a 'rational' species.

Truth is, or should be, the basis for our ethics.

The Virtue of Honesty (along with Compassion, Sympathy, Happiness, Faith, Charity (not taking more than your share of anything...), Empathy... are fruits of unconditional Love, (rather than 'Truth') the basis for 'ethics'.
'Truth' (like 'facts') is for 'believers' and philosophers, conditional.
Ultimately, Truth is ALL inclusive.

And most of us aren't lawyers...

Thank Dog!
But the law and ethics are not necessarily related, obviously...