College Student releases ****-list power-point

t4k30

This has been happening in UCD for years ! Jesus people are always grading each other, the fact some one wrote down a grading system, doesnt make it any worse. Stop over reacting !

Logical Fallacy

prinz wrote: »

Is it morally wrong to murder someone?

Depends on the circumstances. And plenty of people would have no moral issue with murdering someone, this is why murder occurs.

sponsoredwalk

prinz wrote: »

Is it morally wrong to murder someone? Or do we accept that other people have an open view on it? I presume you take the same stance when guys secretly tape girls and send the movie to 3 friends 'in confidence' do you?

So far we've had a woman who sleeps around equated with being a
skanky whore who leads men to commit suicide and a murderer,
anything else you prudish people want to insinuate?

Wibbs

Oh and lads, they're clearly lying, size does matter.:pac:

Seosaimh77

liah wrote: »

Legally, though, she has done nothing wrong.

Her friends breeched her trust by spreading it. She was responsible for writing it down, yes, but she was NOT responsible for them (the men) finding out about it and therefore shouldn't have any legal repercussions. Again, where do you draw the line on defamation, then?

I agree that she didn't do anything wrong because I dont think that there is anything defamatory in her remarks. She is allowed to express herself about her personal experiences.

But, if she had said anything defamatory, she would be responsible, even if her friends were the ones who put it on the internet. eg, if I tell my friends that MR X is a murderer, and that rumour gets out, it would be my fault as I started the rumour - I made the first defamatory statement. My friends may be liable too (depending on the circumstances) but I would definitely be liable.

But as I said, I dont think there is anything defamatory about what she did say so it's fine

sponsoredwalk

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh and lads, they're clearly lying, size does matter.:pac:

What other social taboo's are going to be brokan? Oh my fragile little mind

Wibbs

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

What other social taboo's are going to be brokan? Oh my fragile little mind

In no particular order or gender... Yes I would prefer if you had a smaller arse, more interesting friends, bigger dick, smaller gut, more money, wore less makeup, didnt snore, didnt just lay there in bed, had less ear hair, oh and I fancy your mate and think of him/her when we're shagging.

baltimore sun

she took off points if there were from Canada....:D:D

prinz

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Depends on the circumstances. And plenty of people would have no moral issue with murdering someone, this is why murder occurs.

Thank you for reinforcing my point, that yes morals do have a part in a discussion on someone else's actions, which counters the idea that because people have different morals they all balance out and morality itself becomes irrelevant.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

So far we've had a woman who sleeps around equated with being a skanky whore who leads men to commit suicide and a murderer, anything else you prudish people want to insinuate?

Sleeping around is her business. Making personal info public without other's consent is nothing to do with prudishness. It's basic ignorance and immaturity on her part. THAT is what people are holding her to account for. I couldn't care less if she slept with 1 or 1000, she erred in making this stupid powerpoint presentation and sharing it with others.

Haarlz

I wish someone did that around here..It would be a nice warning ha:)

sponsoredwalk

prinz wrote: »

Thank you for reinforcing my point, that yes morals do have a part in a discussion on someone else's actions, which counters the idea that because people have different morals they all balance out and morality itself becomes irrelevant.

The concept of morality is irrelevant as well because of what this girl did :eek:

liah

Prinz, this isn't a moral issue-- your own personal views on sex (between consenting adults; comparing it to murder is the most retarded thing I've heard yet in this thread and totally discredits any point you've made thus far imo) don't come into it.

For me this is far more about freedom of speech than any SUBJECTIVE moral viewpoint such as sex.

Where is the line between defamation and sharing with mates you thought you could trust? That's what pisses me off. Fine, chastise her for making what you subjectively feel to be something amoral and sharing it with her friends, but don't go pretending that just because you disagree with her feelings that it's suddenly the law. It's not.

She wrote honestly, not all the reviews were bad, and she only wrote from personal experience. She shared it only with her friends. I ask you where on earth you plan to draw the line on what can or cannot be shared while taking your own SUBJECTIVE moral viewpoint completely out of the equation.

Do not further insult yourself by comparing it to murder or violence again, please, it does nothing for either side of the argument.

Also please don't compare it to people being filmed in sex acts against their will, what she wrote about was clearly between two consenting adults.

WindSock

I wish someone did that around here..It would be a nice warning ha

I had a sexual encounter with this poster. It was bloody awful, she just lay there like a corpse. Not that I don't mind corpses, but corpses at least manage to stay quiet while I am getting on with the munging. This wan wouldn't shut up about her new diet and the X Factor. Not a great experience over all 3/10 and an extremely hairy minge to boot (which I did by her kinky request)

Haarlz

WindSock wrote: »

I had a sexual encounter with this poster. It was bloody awful, she just lay there like a corpse. Not that I don't mind corpses, but corpses at least manage to stay quiet while I am getting on with the munging. This wan wouldn't shut up about her new diet and the X Factor. Not a great experience over all 3/10 and an extremely hairy minge to boot.

Mmmmm thats nice

prinz

liah wrote: »

Prinz, this isn't a moral issue-- your own personal views on sex (between consenting adults; comparing it to murder is the most retarded thing I've heard yet in this thread and totally discredits any point you've made thus far imo) don't come into it.

Get a grip and read what I wrote.

liah wrote: »

Fine, chastise her for making what you subjectively feel to be something amoral and sharing it with her friends, but don't go pretending that just because you disagree with her feelings that it's suddenly the law. It's not.

Could you enlighten me as to where I did that? Was it when I wrote this perhaps...

prinz wrote:

There's two issues. Legally there's no real come-back. She didn't technically break any laws that I am aware of. Morally and technically speaking yes she is at fault for the 'leak'

liah wrote: »

Do not further insult yourself ..

Wise words, live by them.

liah wrote: »

Also please don't compare it to people being filmed in sex acts against their will, what she wrote about was clearly between two consenting adults.

So the guys gave their consent to be featured in this presentation did they? Just like someone being filmed didn't give consent to be recorded on film...

sponsoredwalk

liah wrote: »

Prinz, this isn't a moral issue-- your own personal views on sex (between consenting adults; comparing it to murder is the most retarded thing I've heard yet in this thread and totally discredits any point you've made thus far imo) don't come into it.

For me this is far more about freedom of speech than any SUBJECTIVE moral viewpoint such as sex.

Where is the line between defamation and sharing with mates you thought you could trust? That's what pisses me off. Fine, chastise her for making what you subjectively feel to be something amoral and sharing it with her friends, but don't go pretending that just because you disagree with her feelings that it's suddenly some absolute moral law. It's not.

She wrote honestly, not all the reviews were bad, and she only wrote from personal experience. She shared it only with her friends. I ask you where on earth you plan to draw the line on what can or cannot be shared while taking your own SUBJECTIVE moral viewpoint completely out of the equation.

Do not further insult yourself by comparing it to murder or violence again, please, it does nothing for either side of the argument.

Also please don't compare it to people being filmed in sex acts against their will, what she wrote about was clearly between two consenting adults.

I think that's what you mean because he'll just use the excuse he already said the girl didn't break the law & I feel he'll cop out from responding to the actual point you're making.

sponsoredwalk

prinz wrote: »

So the guys gave their consent to be featured in this presentation did they? Just like someone being filmed didn't give consent to be recorded on film...

No, but the girl didn't set out to make this thing public either, did she?
She sent it to her friends, i.e. she kept it personal and her friends
breached her trust. It is not her fault this went public. If she had openly
published this then I think you'd have an argument but under the present
circumstances you haven't.

sponsoredwalk

I told you what he'd do, he'd avoid the point you were making! Classic!

prinz

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

No, but the girl didn't set out to make this thing public either, did she? She sent it to her friends, i.e. she kept it personal and her friends breached her trust. It is not her fault this went public. If she had openly published this then I think you'd have an argument but under the present circumstances you haven't.

It doesn't matter who she sent it to. The fact is she sent it to other people. After that what they do with it is irrelevant. The information came from her.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I told you what he'd do, he'd avoid the point you were making! Classic!

I'm sorry I am not pyschic. I may need your help translating in future.

Logical Fallacy

prinz wrote: »

Thank you for reinforcing my point, that yes morals do have a part in a discussion on someone else's actions, which counters the idea that because people have different morals they all balance out and morality itself becomes irrelevant.

I'm not reinforcing your point, I am merely answering a question that you asked, you are interpreting my answer as a reinforcement of your point.

Personally i don't think morals come into it, but that's just me. Keeping a record or sharing it with someone is not an invasion of someones privacy. Social code means whatever we say or do with another can be passed on....I imagine the blokes in question turned around to at least one friend and indicated a sexual encounter with her, it just that they may have done so verbally instead of in text.

The issue here lies with the friend that broke trust and sent it onwards, that's about it. Anyone who says anything else is largely arguing a dead point.

prinz

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

I'm not reinforcing your point, I am merely answering a question that you asked, you are interpreting my answer as a reinforcement of your point.Personally i don't think morals come into it, but that's just me.

The very fact that you acknowledged that people have different morals and that distinction can be made, did reinforce my point though, whether intentional or not. The point was made that morals should be kept out of a discussion such as this, that's a meaningless position.

sponsoredwalk

prinz wrote: »

It doesn't matter who she sent it to. The fact is she sent it to other people. After that what they do with it is irrelevant. The information came from her.

And we go in circles from this point on I imagine. My first post answered this
already ffs, by your moral logic it'd be a crime to tell a secret for fear
someone might find out about it. The difference here? It's on paper as
opposed to conversation between two people. Again you're applying your
own standards to this situation, you feel it's wrong to tell secrets, okay,
great. I don't. Doesn't change the fact that this secret between friends
leaked and went public, by your logic she should be whipped or whatever
for telling her friends secrets in the first place.

Logical Fallacy

prinz wrote: »

The very fact that you acknowledged that people have different morals and that distinction can be made, did reinforce my point though, whether intentional or not. The point was made that morals should be kept out of a discussion such as this, that's a meaningless position.

Of course they should be kept out of a discussion such as this. Did she do anything illegal?

That's as simple as this is.

prinz

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

...I imagine the blokes in question turned around to at least one friend and indicated a sexual encounter with her, it just that they may have done so verbally instead of in text..

..and I'd find that equally distasteful. If that one friend told another and so on.....the origin of the info remains the bloke.

prinz

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Of course they should be kept out of a discussion such as this. Did she do anything illegal?That's as simple as this is.

Logic fail.

Geansai Rua

Wow..
I thought this was a funny thread by the title.

But this has got way too heavy!

Gummy Panda

liah wrote:

For me this is far more about freedom of speech than any SUBJECTIVE moral viewpoint such as sex.

So people give up their right to privacy for the freedom of speech?

sponsoredwalk

Gummy Panda wrote: »

So people give up their right to privacy for the freedom of speech?

Yes, that's the logical conclusion of the point she's making, just as suicide
is a logical conclusion after sleeping with someone :rolleyes:

liah

Gummy Panda wrote: »

So people give up their right to privacy for the freedom of speech?

That's my point. Where are the lines drawn? Is it at telling a secret to a friend? Or is it at spreading it to the public?

Should it be illegal to share personal experiences involving others with friends? I agree it should be illegal to make that kind of information available to the entire world via the internet, but I severely disagree that it should be illegal to share experiences with your mates! Jesus, if that were the case we'd have very little to talk about!

She related personal experiences to friends.
She did NOT release it to the internet.

Taking morals out of it (i.e., whether or not you personally believe sex should be discussed at that degree with friends, that's a subjective view, not an objective one). Imagine this were a discussion about a different kind of personal experience (say, something stupid done while drunk, like jumping off a roof) where do you want to draw the line? Seriously?

EDIT: Just to make my point a little clearer, as far as we know she didn't lie about her experiences and told them truthfully. And as she was not the one to release the information to the public, there was clearly no intent behind what she wrote as she didn't intend for them to hear about it.

It's not slander, it's not defamation, nothing. It's the exact same as telling your mates an embarrassing story about someone else. The idea that it's sex has little to do with it. I guarantee the guys turned to their mates and made comments about her and probably talked an awful lot about her since she did so many who knew each other, and I highly doubt you believe they should be punished via the legal system for it.

Be reasonable, like.

Gummy Panda

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Yes, that's the logical conclusion of the point she's making, just as suicide
is a logical conclusion after sleeping with someone :rolleyes:

And where did I make any reference to suicide?

sponsoredwalk

Gummy Panda wrote: »

And where did I make any reference to suicide?

I didn't say you did, read the first post of this thread. Both statements are
just way too OTT for reality.

Gunsfortoys

Since most women agree with her powerpoint presentation, I reckon us lads release a little presentation of our own, guaranteed about 2% of Irish women would qualify.

Dudess

Could you maybe give examples of where women actually said they agree with it? Oh and I see it's ok for you to make derogatory comments about Irish women...

ILA wrote: »

What the **** is up with girls and these gross invasions of privacy and borderline defamation? And who the **** puts that type of thing in writing?

With "girls"? Oh ffs, more of it...

Gunsfortoys wrote: »

I was responding to the "so what" responses by some women.

What "so what?" responses before your post? Some people (not just women) rightly said the suicide remark by the OP was uncalled for.

I reckon if the roles were reversed we would have a feminazi wave of condemnation. Ive seen you discard such male generalising of women on here for way less offensive items. So please, save me the "I dont know what your talking about" rabble.

I really and truly don't know what the need for your feminazi comment was - perhaps to rile, but other than that...
What does it take to constitute a feminazi 'round these parts anyway? I'd have thought it was a term for an angry man-hater who refuses to wear make-up, lingerie etc as it's bowing down to evil men, and who hates women who look pretty, and so on. It appears to be the case on Boards though that a woman who speaks out against unpleasant misogynistic comments is enough to constitute a feminazi.

Grim.

I really don't think she should have shared info on unenjoyable sexual experiences, and named names, with her friends though.

ILA

Given some of the opinions on this thread, I'd now support the draconian Privacy Bill which was in the works. May write to Dermo to get it reactivated.

Logical Fallacy

prinz wrote: »

Logic fail.

Hardly, moral issues and issues of criminality have little to do with each other. One is the law of the land, the other is how you personally feel about things.

sponsoredwalk

Dudess wrote: »

What does it take to constitute a feminazi 'round these parts anyway? I'd have thought it was a term for an angry man-hater who refuses to wear make-up, lingerie etc as it's bowing down to evil men, and who hates women who look pretty, and so on.

The things in red are the only things that could (should?) get a girl labelled as a
feminazi, the rest sounds pretty hot (except for the refusal for lingerie!)

Logical Fallacy

Dudess wrote: »

What does it take to constitute a feminazi 'round these parts anyway?

Any woman who disagrees with a man.:P

Dudess

For some men here, it seems to be case all right Dragan. And of course when the woman does have the temerity to speak out against some horrible comment made about a woman, it automatically follows that she is: ugly, fat, butch, bitter, jealous (of whom? Hell it doesn't matter!), bla dee bla...

bluecatmorgana

WindSock wrote: »

A girl basically makes a fk diary on Powerpoint, it leaked and because of it now she is a dirty skanky whore, responsible for male suicide rates?

I agree its unfair and I reported title and first post, and would encourage others to do the same if they feel similarly.

btard

What's the big deal? It's just your normal slut diary. It what they talk about among themselves anyway. This one just happened to get out for some reason.

Dudess

Creating a PowerPoint sexual partner rating system in the first place is a pretty bizarre thing to do - and seems to be symptomatic of deeper issues. Didn't think a rating system of anything would be created by anyone after the age of 14 (apart from when it's necessary).

Logical Fallacy

Dudess wrote: »

For some men here, it seems to be case all right Dragan. And of course when the woman does have the temerity to speak out against some horrible comment made about a woman, it automatically follows that she is: ugly, fat, butch, bitter, jealous (of whom? Hell it doesn't matter!), bla dee bla...

It's Logical Fallacy now, i've rebranded for late 2010, looking to get in touch with the youth market and max the evelope etc. You can still call me Dragan though.:cool:

And sadly i wasn't even joking, feminazi is bandied around like hipster,culchie and proletariat...everyone has their own definition which they adhere to religious.

Newsflash folks, words mean things, look em up or at least try and figure out what the common consensus is in the event of the word being modern vernacular as opposed to established English.

Gummy Panda

Dudess wrote: »

Creating a PowerPoint sexual partner rating system in the first place is a pretty bizarre thing to do - and seems to be symptomatic of deeper issues. Didn't think a rating system of anything would be created by anyone after the age of 14 (apart from when it's necessary).

Maybe she was a big fan of mallrats

Micky Dolenz

Thread title has been edited to better describe topic.

Logical Fallacy

Gummy Panda wrote: »

Maybe she was a big fan of mallrats

The whole thing does smack of an unimaginative fake alright, like that chick who quite her job via picture.

HOPA indeed.

Dudess

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

It's Logical Fallacy now, i've rebranded for late 2010, looking to get in touch with the youth market and max the evelope etc.

I understand: you forgot your old email address for changing your password after Boards was hacked... :pac:

Logical Fallacy

Dudess wrote: »

I understand: you forgot your old email address for changing your password after Boards was hacked... :pac:

Bingo.:D

Gunsfortoys

Dudess wrote: »

For some men here, it seems to be case all right Dragan. And of course when the woman does have the temerity to speak out against some horrible comment made about a woman, it automatically follows that she is: ugly, fat, butch, bitter, jealous (of whom? Hell it doesn't matter!), bla dee bla...

And women on here haven't done the same to a bloke? All I said was that IF it was a bloke that had these things released (by accident or not by accident) you would be saying "why do men have to demean the women like that rabble rabble rabble". Yet when a couple of girls do it then you think "sure why not".

sponsoredwalk

Gunsfortoys wrote: »

And women on here haven't done the same to a bloke? All I said was that IF it was a bloke that had these things released (by accident or not by accident) you would be saying "why do men have to demean the women like that rabble rabble rabble". Yet when a couple of girls do it then you think "sure why not".

I've never read that here on boards yet, if you could point to some posts it'd be
great to see this spectre in action!

Dudess

Gunsfortoys wrote: »

And women on here haven't done the same to a bloke?

Yeah they have, but far, far less (far less women on After Hours though, to be fair) - don't see how that makes it ok for there to be all that "feminazi" shyte though. There isn't even a male equivalent for the word "feminazi" too.

All I said was that IF it was a bloke that had these things released (by accident or not by accident) you would be saying "why do men have to demean the women like that rabble rabble rabble". Yet when a couple of girls do it then you think "sure why not".

I see very little, if any, "sure why not?" comments, and the ones I do see (and they're not as black and white as "sure why not?" in fairness) are being made by women AND men.
Also, if you read my posts to this thread, you will see I have been critical of the girl and of people in general who belittle the sexual performance of named partners.