not a list about sam but a list that links immoral behaviours in general
basically in your oppinion privacy ranks above fidelity and the invasion of it is more immoral than cheating to you whereas for sam its the other way around
also both of you are perfectly fine with ignoring the lesser moral issues as long as those higher up on your personal list are adhered to
whats more is youre both accusing the other of having his list in the wrong order
to tie in with the previous statement that means on your list reenactments of nazi history for pleasure are more immoral and the occurence of these overrides a persons right for privacy in your oppinion correct?
hm didnt you accuse sam for bringin his personal feelings from his marriage into this?
also at the risk of insulting you (trust me im not trying to) where does the selfishness of valuing your own privacy higher than that of others rank for you?
Read better. Cheating on someone is immoral also for me, but I'm no moralist, my moral applies to me: I don't think that a person should lose his job or position because he cheated on his wife, except special cases I mentioned before.
Instead, privacy isn't a moral issue: it's a fundamental right. I'm not accusing SamH of putting things in the wrong order: I'm saying that his position on disclosure of private matters opens an enormous loophole on individual freedoms and is completely asystematic. That's hugely different.
So, in your opinion, if a child denounced he was molested by a presumed paedophile no investigation could occur. Correct?
The same principle applies here. That's why I'm interested only in peculiar allegations that have very specific consequences on his public figure, I don't care about cheating (but then again, no one knows if Mosley's wife knows and agrees) or s&m, and I said that a thousand times. It shouldn't be difficult to comprehend.
Yes. But my positions about privacy don't allow me to crawl under his sheets to see what he's doing. His positions seem to allow and encourage what I consider an undue investigation on private matters.
No, you're not insulting me. I value my privacy more than others?
You're wrong. My privacy is equal to yours, SamH's, Mosley's. But I'm not willing to fight for other people if they're unwilling to fight for themselves. So, to refer to a personal episode, my colleagues can do what they want, regardless of my position, just as Mosley, SamH and you. Doing otherwise would be imposing my own battles upon other people, and I'm not that kind of guy. I defend my beliefs and rights but not at the cost of imposing my will upon others. My political opinions don't allow me to do such things.
fundamental rights are just a few bits of western ethics/morals/ideology that were considered the most important at some point which still makes them valid targets for individual list ordering
Let's avoid confusing values and rights. Fidelity is a value, privacy is a right, at least in Italy. Being sacked for being disloyal to your wife should only happen on very specific circumstances I already mentioned, and that's the point of my reasoning.
In fact you didn't. Sorry for that, I expressed myself really badly but I didn't really mean to suggest that this was an opinion of yours, but in fact I did and I recognise that in this case there's absolutely no way in which I could logically reach such conclusion. I apologise for this hoping you understand the bulk of my reasoning (referred to me, and not to you).
Good. I hope you understand that my radical positions on individual freedoms are only due to respect of the rights of other people, no matter what I think about a subject or about a person. Not everyone is able to separate such issues. I do: on my own I am free to do what I want, and others are too, and as long as it's legal there's no way I can question those freedoms or use loathsome methods to discredit someone, no matter how hideous or repulsive I may find some things. Doing otherwise would be applying a totalitarian attitude, and Mosley isn't excluded from this basic form of protection.
(note the thinly veiled dig at Hamiltons recent speeding ticket in paragraph 4, the guy just can't help himself)
Anyway, it doesn't look as though he's going down without a fight, however, his presidency is up for renewal/vote/whatever ? next year so it's my guess we won't be seeing him for too much longer, regardless.
Meanwhile News of the World continues to build up what seems to be a blatant lie, reporting Mosley taped everything for his pleasure. Why he would have taped his entrance to the dungeon from outside, I don't know. The lack of quality of some cameras filming the action is also more consistent with manual hidden camera operation (with the operator unable to see the frames), so it appears (to me) that Mosley is likely to be able to clear himself from the Nazi allegations in a tribunal, no matter if it exposes more his tastes for sex with members of FIA. My guess is that it's likely that the FIA will give the boot to Mosley issuing a statement in which they clear Mosley from the Nazi allegations, condemn the intrusion in his privacy and recognises it as undue or illegal but in the end, for what I call 'reasons of opportunity', asks or orders him to leave.
I'll try to answer to your post without steering the thread into total off-topicness.
I'll accept that rights come from lawmakers (pretty obvious, don't you think?) and talk about the Italian law, which I believe to be much more restrictive on marriage and adultery than the English one.
If Mosley got caught red-handed (or with red buttocks, in this case) there would have been no public process since adultery is no longer a crime from 1968: it's a pure violation of fidelity obligations against the husband or wife, and as such can grant a good reason for a divorce cause but in no way can be considered illegal. On the other hand the publication of such private matters would be a violation of a huge numbers of laws and would have granted a very hard normative intervention of our Garante della privacy, which is a powerful public figure which dictates respect of privacy norms and laws, which - once again - are very advanced in Italy, although not always respected (as it happens not only in Italy).
I think that even in UK things work this way for marriages: what Mosley did could grant a divorce, that is, if Mosley's wife is interested. At the same time I doubt UK laws permit the collection and the diffusion of images regarding the sexual activities of citizens who didn't commit any crime. So what if Mosley is paying for the illegal activities of someone while doing nothing illegal? Too many people seem to forget this fact while pointing their finger at Mosley saying 'woah, what a horrible man'. To me they're just as horrible as the man they are condemning since they can't mind their own business and accuse someone on evidence gathered committing a crime. And if no crime was committed filming Mosley I'd just consider UK a barbaric Country.
So.. China's privacy on the matter of Tibet should be respected, I presume? The filming inside Tibet is most definitely illegal according to the law in that country, afterall. No matter what activities are uncovered by it. No?
Wrong. Advocating the freedom of press doesn't mean advocating the right of the press to film nasty movies of someone making sex in private, SamH. Journalism and voyerism are different things, or at least they were last time I checked.
Brothels are illegal in the UK, from what I can work out. The police are, apparently, shutting them down as quickly as they can find them. Like it or not, what was being filmed was a crime in progress. The persons involved can be regarded as irrelevent to a greater or lesser degree, they were all at the scene of a crime at the time the crime was being committed, no matter how inconvenient it may now turn out to be, to Mosley.
I expect Mosley to be prosecuted, then, or to lose any cause he'll promote in tribunals. If it was his right to do what he did without being filmed, we'll see in the future.
Interestingly enough, according to an apparently well-known british massage parlour guide, in Yorkshire alone there are 144 establishments: 55 in massage parlours, 31 in dominatrixes, 6 in private establishments, 2 in escort agencies, 46 in working ladies, 1 in couples, 3 in houses of domination. So do you work this out by looking outside your window? :P
Illegal they might be but apparently they're thriving and according to a rather dated article in the Times there appears to be a sort of acceptance or flexibility on the matter. Perhaps because they form a necessity for the current social norm in the UK. However leaving it undefined by law gives yet another option for people who want to set traps.
There's been a shift in focus in the UK, away from the criminal prostitute and onto the criminal exploiter of the prostitute. The individual prostitute is now treated by the police as the single victim in the crime.. everybody else, whether the punter or the pimp (the brothel owner, the manager, the book-keeper..) anyone profiting from the exploitation of the prostitute is in essence regarded as a perpetrator to a crime. Quite a paradigm shift in many respects, but it opens the door to helping genuine victims of circumstance and victims of sexual predatorial activities actually get out of their situation. That's the goal, anyhoo.
How do we know that they were prostitutes in first place? Isn't only source telling that the very same newspaper that published story and video? Can we be sure that they are right or telling facts?
There are several messageboards where people can find other people with similar interests, let it be cars or something else.
Sure it can be that they were prostitute, who knows really these days, when everything is so upside down.
It will be a proper paradigm shift when sex workers are allowed the same status as other workers, and when other workers can easily protect themselves from those criminals that profit from the exploitation of their labour (managers, book-keepers etc...).
I got weird image of having sex in free fall after reading that, but maybe I got something wrong once again
Pay sex is not really bad thing IF one offering it is doing it from own will, making sure of that is then bit of a problem that causes lot and lot of trouble.
However you can't never make pay sex to disappear, make tight laws and it goes underground, making sure criminals get their share, it is as bright idea as banning alcohol, which they did try here one time at history, it did not go well at all and our nation still suffers consequences of it.
