Leaked nude celebrity photos and the Law

Within the last day hackers gained access to nude pictures and videos of certain American celebrities. A certain forum member linked an article on Facebook that suggested criminal punishment not just for the hackers but to everyone who viewed those photos.



The article said:

"It’s an act of sexual violation, and it deserves the same social and legal punishment as meted out to stalkers and other sexual predators."



If possible, with a push of a button, completely for free for taxpayers, would you put all those who have intentionally looked at these pornographic pictures to face charges and take the appropriate punishment?



California stalking laws can penalize this anything from misdemeanor to a felony resulting to 5 years in prison. Sometimes the convicted will become registered sex offenders. It is unlikely that these would become felonies (unless they want to make examples out of the few people they can catch) but is this really the wisest course of action to pursue?



I asked above whether you'd charge all of them for free but let's see how this would realistically go down if the states started to pursue these people. Millions, if not billions, of tax dollars would go to police the internet, enforce charges, fund courts while many of the accused would lose their jobs and become desperate.



If it weren't successful in finding many offenders, it would probably do the same things as it does in piracy which is that it would make examples of few people without decreasing the number of offenders significantly. It would also increase the opportunities to enforce law selectively to individuals, an excellent tool for a police state.



This is a complex social issue and I don't think violence is the answer.

Leaked nude celebrity photos and the Law

Effects of Women's Rights Laws on Corporations

Basically, it goes like this: Let's say you have Corporation A and Corporation B. Corporation A is perfectly fair and just and hires the best people with the most talent, while Corporation B is sexist and tends to hire men, even if there is a female with more talent. Corporation B interviews a man and a woman, with the woman having more talent. Corporation B hires the man. The woman interviewed by Corporation B applies to Corporation A and gets hired there. Now, Corporation B has to compete against better talent - resulting in a competitive disadvantage. By not hiring the best talent available, the success of their company becomes endangered. By having less talent, and being unable to deliver a better quality product at the most competitive price, they slowly lose market share, lose their profitability, and eventually go out of business or change their policies and start hiring the best talent, whether it's in men or women, in order to compete.



This is basically the argument made by right-wing capitalist Republicans, arguing for deregulation. They present the above argument that the market itself is enough of a corrective action to change behavior as businesses in the private market compete for profit. Why? Because the competitive market and the picky consumer makes them accountable. They will also argue that when there's more government, less competition and less accountability, sexism tends to increase.



They'll also make another logical argument - sometimes the fair/right people have to waste resources defending themselves against lawsuits because of equal rights laws: Let's say Corporation A, the fair organization, interviews a man and a woman. The man has more talent. Corporation A hires the man. However, the woman feels slighted and discriminated against. She doesn't apply elsewhere for someone else to hire her, but she starts a lawsuit against Corporation A, accusing them of being unfair in the hiring process. Eventually, Corporation A wins this lawsuit and successfully shows that they were fair during the hiring process. However, they had to spend millions of dollars in legal fees, attorney costs, etc., that ultimately take away from the product they are delivering to the consumer (might have to raise prices to pay for legal costs) - so the consumer suffers, as well as everyone working at Corporation A, even though they had done the right thing.



Some of the equal rights laws punish the good guy, hurt productivity, and are bad for the economy.



There is a counter argument though, typically made by the Democrats that call for more regulation, that I wish to present just as equally, for the sake of debate:



The above scenarios describe a situation in which the 'market' punishes the companies who discriminate, but it makes a big assumption that there is the presence of a Corporation A who is fair and just. What if there is no Corporation A who is fair? Or what if there aren't enough Corporation A's with open spots for the women with more talent?



What if, in an industry as a whole, many companies collude against women or share a common stereotype that men have more talent? What if an extremely talented woman applies to multiple corporations but doesn't get hired at any of them? When will there be corrective action or any fairness?



While some equal rights laws may punish the good guy in Corporation A, they also have an effect in punishing the bad guy in Corporation B. If for some reason, the motivation for money isn't enough, Corporation B now has to change or modify their hiring process in order to be more fair to women, and balance the costs of possibly violating the equal rights laws against their personal views of men being more talented than women.



Because of women's rights laws, many women have been given the opportunity to get hired at Corporation B, showcase their talent, and help change the minds of Corporation B and change their viewpoints. So the equal rights laws also provide a corrective action to the market, and they help defend women from being discriminated against.



Thoughts and/or comments?

Effects of Women's Rights Laws on Corporations

Feeding your assumed curiosity and introducing myself

Hi, I'm a personality theory enthusiast who has not been able to recognize her Socionics type.... nor MBTI. I'm here hoping to learn more and meet like-minded people.

Feeding your assumed curiosity and introducing myself

Author - Chuck Palahniuk?

Realized we didn't have a thread for this guy. Weird writer, very nice voyages into the creepy/insane, very into the "grit" of humanity...

Really loved Lullaby, but Diary was very frustrating to read and I couldn't even finish Haunted. He's very good at making the reader feel trapped and playing on visceral fear, not to mention his descriptions are uber-gory. In other words, masterful writer, but can be miserable to read :D



He also wrote Fight Club - I haven't read that book but I'm sure most of y'all have seen the movie.



Might guess Gamma, his stuff is very dark and he doesn't really do happy endings (except for "happy irony")

so I'd guess Te realism with Fi/Se - very strong understanding of people and possibly Pi-dom

Author - Chuck Palahniuk?

Confused

Decided I'd try typing myself again but I'm now more confused than ever. I understand more about how Socionics works but when it comes to assigning IM's to functions I can't figure out where my irrational IM's go. It's like I have good use of all of them to some extent or another. Yet logic seems to be what I lead with meaning at least one irrational IM has to be placed as my POLR.. Which I can't really see happening. So I'm wondering now whether I don't really lead with a logical IM after all and really I'm just back at square one. Can anyone help me out?



Also I'm not willing to take any questionnaires if anyone is about to ask that. I've already taken so many and I don't have the resources or time to do any any time soon anyway.

Confused

Failure to Fly: explaing non-daulity outside of socionics

By now, you are familiar with the theory of socionics, and, like so many others, you were intially drawn to the mystical relationship of duality. You read the description repeatedly to ensure that you did not miss a vital point and that all words and concepts were driven into your thoughts. The idealistic concept of 'true love', a 'perfect partner', or a 'perfect fit', something that so many people long for without finding, something that so many people aspire to attain in their short lives. Is this the key to finding true happiness within a romantic relationship? That is the promise socionics professes but sadly does not guarantee.



They acknowledge that duality is actually more rare than any other relationship but why is 'the most psychological compatible relationship' such a rarity? They answer thus: dual partners must interact with one another and be attracted to one another. They must want the same things, and so on and so forth. Is that not simplistic? Are dual partners not capable of compromising their desires? Are not dual partners capable of looking past shallow appearances? I will cease to entertain these questions any further and instead narrow my focus.



Here is a moment of clarity I wish to share with you: socionics is a psychological theory of personality and not a theory on healthy and loving relationships. They have researched, observed, collected data, analyzed, and developed a theory on psychological types and from that derived a theorhetical model of socionic types. Their conclusion is that duality is the preferrential relationship amongst all sixteen relationships. That much is true and I personally agree with that nugget of knowledge. However, what does that really amount to? So dual partnerships will naturally work itself out without effort? Socionics have tried to explain why dual partners do not succeed in their relationships as if to do so goes against nature. There are seven stages of duality, etc. Is that the real reason? I ask: is it wise to heed romantic advise from socionics when socionics and romance are completely different!? Socionics prescribes how duality 'should' work but they do not have the authority to prescribe how a romantic relationship works! That is the truth.



So then from here I will examine how two individuals who are dual partners can and can not experience duality utterly separate from socionics. Here I will refer to the psychologist John Gottman. He has been studying successful and failed marriages for four decades. His entire expertise is to offer an explanation as to why some couples have long lasting marriages and other couples divorce only after a short time. He divised a classification system between two main categories: masters and disasters. I will not regurgitate his research word for word but instead put this into context for socionics.



If you meet your dual and you find them attractive and you pursue a relationship with them, then the success of the relationship does not depend upon socionics but upon the emotional nurturance of the partners. That is to say John Gottman's explanation of a master and disaster are entirely based upon how a person nurtures within a relationship. This has nothing to do with their biological predisposition nor their personality type. So an ESFJ type that has a healthy disposition will act in accordance with the description of a master. That is someone who is considerate, honest, kind, giving, etc. As such they are most favourable for a relationship independent of the other persons type. They will be a master in their relationship wheather they are paired with an INTJ, ESFJ, ENTP, etc. Since they are a master in their relationship, they are more likely to have a healthy and happy relationship. The same is true of the disaster.



If you have ever met your dual partner only to discover that they are extremely difficult to handle and you can not get along with them then that has nothing to do with socionics nor duality. If you or your dual partner are a disaster in a relationship then that will be the source of destruction within the relationship. A dual partner can be abusive, critical, mean, predatory, dominating, selfish, etc. Such traits diminish emotional trust and intimacy. So to clarify once more. If an individual is a master in their relationships then that will be a more vital factor in the health and happiness regardless of their socionic relationships.



What can we conclude from this? Only what we already know, socionics is not everything. It can make a difference in relationships but it is not the sole determinate cause for the success or failure especially of a romantic relationship. So be weary of your thoughts and do not get entangled into believing that a relationship did not work out because dualization did not fully occur. I'd suggest to keep an open mind with regards to other relationships. Sure identify a person by their socionic type but look deeper into their disposition and attitude in life. To use John Gottman's terminology, is that dual partner a master or a disaster in their relationships? I'd even suggest to seek an individual who has a pleasant personality rather than try make a dual relationship work with somone who is a disaster.





http://ift.tt/1pAfxWh

http://ift.tt/1pAfxWj

Failure to Fly: explaing non-daulity outside of socionics

[Socionics] introverted perception and judgment

I get the sense the way introverted perception is dynamic, judgment static, is not very well-presented. It seems like there's a tendency to associate Ni with forecasting trends to explain its dynamic nature, but this seems totally unnatural and out of nowhere.



Here is how I see the relation between these two. Introverted perception is that factor of perception which conveys an image while emphasizing subjective factors more than objective ones. Hence, when an objective stimulus awakens the attention of some party, for the subjective perception to work, the attention must proceed not to merge with the object which transmitted the perception, but to the subjective imagery evoked. To do this, generally the mind synthesizes the image based on various subjective impressions existing already, and even vague glimpses of possible ways these could unfold - it takes all these and puts them together using spontaneously formed associations which are subjective in nature.

You can see images from various points of the subject's past experiences and potential experiences converging in the perception, so as to distance the subject from that factor of perception most immediately released by the objective stimulus. This produces the so-called time-orientation.



When the objective stimulus hits, on the other hand, the introverted judgment, being an introverted process, to truly kick in, must negate the perceptive tendency once the individual has directed the attention inwards. Thus, naturally when perceptive associations bleed into the present from past and future, threatening to suppress the objective image by converging into it continuously, judgment extracts which factors remain constant in the stream of subjective constants. It forms a body of ethical or logical principles which either apply in a given situation or can be expanded to include it as a possibility.



To illustrate how reason plays with objects and subject, we can think of Te/Ti. Te works with objective activity, that is, basically procedural/programmatic information about objects. The idea is that to describe the dynamics of objects, one must be able to say, given two objective states, the process leading to the transformation of the two. Can this be expressed rationally? Yes, by algorithms, hence why Te is algorithmic logic. With subjective states flowing from one to another, bleeding into each other, it gets tricky on the other hand. You could naively think to describe an algorithm for these procedures, but that doesn't work now, does it: because there is no object moving from state to another. It is your subjective consciousness which is moving, expressing how seemingly distinct objects exhibit a relatedness through your subjective consciousness moving from the perception of one to the other. We are not, in a sense, really trying to describe the movement of subjective consciousness here so much as describe the relatedness without having to experience it. In an objective situation, say there are two distinct objects, and one could infer a relatedness between them which isn't objectively given a priori, meaning we do not see an objective path from one to the other, but we do see a relatedness nonetheless, this connection between the objects must necessarily be subjective. At the level of perception, it happens initially when a different experience (whether imaginally generated or actual) converges into this current one, creating the sense of relatedness. That is, our experience of the objectively transmitted perception has suddenly grown divorced from objective factors. This is where static introverted judgment tells you what subjective relatedness is being seen. By getting rid of the time variable, we imagine that the relatednesses which could converge from mentally generated imagery onto the perception of the two objects are rendered inherent to the picture of the two objects. Clearly even if we didn't know this, by definition this must be an introverted function. How to remove the time variable? We must place all convergent associations into fixed categories, meaning, we must name the relatedness (what happens for instance when you take a person, who you experience daily, as slightly different, due to their just living a different phase of life, and name them -- they become one person, they become identifiable, even if this sense of identity is in a sense just something we created - hint, this kind of happens with typology, but obviously we do find this useful in our world). This is how things like introverted thinking work. Of course, usually there'll be more than two objects, more than one interrelation, so there'll be a web of logical associations fixing what can be said about these categories. It probably works similarly with ethical reasoning, except the rational connections between categories will be ethical in nature. For instance, a certain state of relatedness/attraction between categories implies certain ethical statements and logical statements.

[Socionics] introverted perception and judgment