nobody movenobody get hurt
>>12882195I need to be lectured on privacy by someone that doesn't understand the conceptYour fortune: ｷﾀ━━━━━━(ﾟ∀ﾟ)━━━━━━ !!!!
>>12882219Privacy is nice because when people can see everything you do well that makes you worried about how they will think of you!Your fortune: You will meet a dark handsome stranger
>>12882225Privacy is when you know someone is in the bathroom but you let them use it anyway.Your fortune: You will meet a dark handsome stranger
>>12882195TOTAL FROGPOSTER DEATH ALLAHUAKBAR
>>12882237Is it still privacy if I listen to them peeing and pooping through the door but they never know I'm there?Your fortune: You will meet a dark handsome stranger
>>12882237>>12882225two same fortunes is pretty lesbianYour fortune: Reply hazy, try again
>>12882244Yes mostly.It is a desire to respect the space and the integrity of others intimate moments.Your fortune: Outlook good
>>12882195and I think yes while I look down all that cuteness
>>12882248I think there's a distinction to be made here, I'd call what you're describing "respecting other's privacy," whereas privacy itself, or the right to privacy, is more like a circumstance applied to each individual as opposed to a behavior. Your right to privacy is then either upheld or broken depending on the behavior of the other people around you, or yourself I suppose. So a circumstance determined by behaviors rather than a behavior in itself, I think.Your fortune: You will meet a dark handsome stranger
>>12882272Well there is actually a misconception in your definition. A person's right to privacy cannot be impinged by their own forces. The right to be let alone, which was illustrated by a team of academics in Harvard, does state that a person's privacy is his own regardless of his own input. In the case that an individual divulges or shares information that is revealing about oneself, that information must still be: extremely critical, controversial and pertinent information, and it must also be related to the topic being discussed. Meaning, just because I said it out loud does not mean I said it in public, or within capacity of a news outlet's publishing rights. I could have said something in the privacy of my own home, or worse, a government owned building, which does indicate I should not be taken in or out of context.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Right_to_Privacy_(article)#LimitationsYour fortune: Average Luck
>>12882282Yeah the right to privacy is distinct from the actual state of being private I did not word that the best.I do think you can sacrifice or fumble your own privacy, even if you can't impinge on your own rights.Your fortune: Excellent Luck
>>12882295I mean, it would be a paradox to satisfy both ideas at the same time.Consider a person who enables full access to his life: he is watched all the time. But surveillance is defined as primarily only viewing things through one specific lens. A man of this capacity would need thousands of different cameras, all working in unison at the same time, just to materialize the nature of his life being "unprivate."Your fortune: Good news will come to you by mail
isn't the problem that we have too many rights nowadays? the thing that has happened is that everyone leaves everyone else alone. you think that's a good thing? we are sitting in our separate rooms rotting alone and coping by using a shitty website.we need fewer rights. more things forced on us. more rape. the only time something fun and good happens is when people don't respect the "rights" of others, even if just slightly.
>>12882305I noticed that you speak English when you want something...!Your fortune: Outlook good
>>12882306wanting something is the problem. giving people rights is assuming they are a self sufficient vehicle of desire, that they can best choose everything they want, that it aligns with what they need or would like and also that they can enact it themselves, which is an insane thing to think is true.
>>12882299Well I'd say it's a spectrum like most everything else. You're right it would take ridiculous measures to COMPLETELY eliminate a person's privacy, if that was even possible since we should always retain the privacy of our own thoughts regardless of how many cameras are pointed at us. But you could definitely describe different areas within one's life in which their right to privacy is either upheld or infringed.double dubsYour fortune: Excellent Luck
>>12882309It's not just consciousness alone, unconscious thoughts, subconscious thoughts, even preconscious thoughts would be impossible to direct. It would be a homunculus problem all over again, such as the modernists tried to narrate life in a "stream of consciousness," style. It's impossible to narrate all of life, there are too many senses, thoughts, and feelings that we share in a morning alone, than to hope for a full exposure in novelized form.Your fortune: Excellent Luck
>>12882309>>12882320two of the same fortunesYour fortune: （ ´_ゝ`）ﾌｰﾝ
>>12882320Perhaps not narrate, but maybe evoke? Seems to me that we are always caught in this state of simultaneously being undefinable and precisely describable. Direction of our conscious focus lets us see the tiniest details, internal or external, in perfect clarity. But like you say, there's no way we can hold all of those details at once in a single moment of utter comprehension. At most we may connect a few of them at a time. I think this mirrors the uncertainty principle in physics. Heck maybe that even directly contributes to how we experience consciousness.Your fortune: Excellent Luck
dumb frog poster
