Thus the Era of Dreams begins, a historic age when Pirates traverse the oceans in search of riches, glory, and most. Roger revealed the location of the One Piece, a treasure of legends, amassed over generations of sea-travelers. Synopsis Before his execution twenty-four years ago, the fabled Pirate King Gol D.
Naruto Filler Episodes (FIRST PART): 26, 97, 101-106, 137-140, and 143-219.Im at episode 337 and I have a question. This will help you choose which episode to skip and which not to skip. We have compiled a list of all the Naruto filler episodes, Naruto canon episodes, and Naruto Canon-filler episodes. Organizers and create a piece of written text to explain their points of comparison in a.A simple way is to watch naruto without fillers.
One Piece Epde 337 Discussion Download Episode 337
Chris Rock: in converstaion with Frank Rich, and writing in The Hollywood ReporterMatthew Wrather and his smartest, funniest friends started Overthinking It in 2008. Peter Fenzel: Mark Lee: Jordan Stokes 2022→ Download Episode 337 (MP3) Subscribe to the Overthinking It PodcastWant new episodes of the Overthinking It Podcast to download automatically? R/OnePiece - 440 Mario x One Piece Figure Out Feb.
You guys are great at thinking deeply about most issues, but this seems a bit of a blind spot. Perhaps I’ve drunk too deeply of the right-thinking progressive Kool-Aid, but I was kinda appalled. I mean, you guys all have girlfriend and wives, right? Can you really not explain why someone leaking their business correspondence would be less heinous than posting boudoir photos only intended for your viewing? Saying “people like to keep their junk personal” really doesn’t cut it. Really, I was surprised that none of the participants could actually articulate why stealing and publicly displaying a woman’s intimate photos intended for her intimate partners is worse than publishing corporate emails. But if you’re a senior executive sending email to business partners using the Sony email servers, that’s a completely different matter.With regards to the comparison of these emails to J.Law nudie photos, I feel like once again the need for women on the podcast has reared its head.
Here’s just a couple:– There’s the question of harm — that the celebrity pictures are worse because they cause more distress or hurt the person more.If somebody went into my work email (or the work email of a female loved one of mine), found something embarrassing, and forwarded it all over the Internet with the goal of getting me or them fired from our jobs, that would be very harmful, both materially and emotionally.In line with what we discussed on the podcast, I might even hope that out of courtesy and understanding of how our moral lives are affected by the erosion of privacy, my co-workers might choose not to click on such a link or might make a show of ignoring it or forgetting it – basing the decision on the reality of a world of dirty laundry.That all aside, maybe it’s that we’re getting old that we consider losing our jobs to be as bad if not a worse consequence. They’re totally correct.But the rest of the conversation spun out to talk about how difficult it is to live ethically by judging your actions by far-reaching aggregate consequences, looking for some sort of more personal way to relate to these moral questions.And I think those are legitimate concerns.But you could definitely consider a variety of other formulations of this question that lead to different ethical conversations. Here was my take on what he said:– It reduces women’s bodies to objects for use and exploitation.– It is part of a systematic historical pattern of exploitation, abuse and oppression.I might have taken issue with them, but it’s not that they’re incorrect. We only really got into one or two formulations of why talking about and looking at the leaked celebrity pictures is worse than talking about and looking at the Sony emails(Although to be fair, that wasn’t even the question we were considering — the question was, if we start from the assumption that talking about and looking at the pictures is bad, why is talking about and looking at the emails okay or even good? Similar, but different.)I think it was Mark who did a pretty good job on the podcast explaining two formulations of why the pictures are worse than the emails. I’ll start with the second one first.Time was a big issue on this podcast, as it often is.
And that to me intuitively seems like a poor basis for an ethic.So, yeah, there’s the argument from harm. Exposing somebody who is not normally in that environment to it could be a new extreme pain.This then raises another uncomfortable issue with utilitarianism, which is that if things are already really bad, it’s sometimes hard to calculate whether it even matters if you make things worse. You could go into the game theory math on that and probably find some interesting stuff.(btw, on the podcast my understanding is we were talking about sharing and talking about and clicking on things that are already in broad circulation, rather than actually causing the security breaches and initially leaking the files — I hope everybody understands that that’s terribly heinous in whole other ways).I also think that with the pictures, there is a bigger gap between public and private individuals than with the work emails in terms of additional harm.Celebrities are already being constantly stressed out by people constantly taking pictures of them without their permission and sending them all over the place. Which means we can’t really make decisions about whether or not to click on something based on the harm that clicking on it will cause.And this is also putting aside the whole giant free rider/collective action problem of the actual harm caused by one person clicking on it being next to nothing. We shouldn’t just associate the idea of harm with them in an abstract way without looking at what the harm actually is.Joel McHale seems to have been helped by the Sony leaks – the preponderance of opinion finds it endearing, and he got a nice visibility bump.Jeopardy and Wheel of Fortune were also helped by the Sony leaks – their issues with the NFL programming are legit, and I think everybody knowing about it in this way makes them more sympathetic and makes it easier to defend their drop in ratings because of pre-emption.Angelina Jolie seems to have been hurt and embarrassed by the Sony leaks in ways she really doesn’t deserve and has every right to be upset.And on the other side, we are all familiar with situations were celebrity leaked photos or videos end up being very helpful to the celebrity, making them fame and money and giving them career opportunities — both stuff released accidentally and on purpose.But of course we can’t judge whether clicking on leaked information is going to be harmful until we click on it and read it.
That clicking on and talking about the pictures is worse because the intention of them is to be private to a greater degree than text conversations, and because the will that gives force to these intentions is of moral value.This is similar to Mark’s argument from use and exploitation, although I like it a bit more because it’s more about individual people and less about big social forces.But this also runs into the practical problem that we don’t know what the intention behind things online is until we click on them.One argument this gives rise to that I think is interesting is that it is wrong and bad to misrepresent the intentions of any piece of content in an online headline, because if we don’t have confidence that content is what it says it is, then we can’t make moral decisions about whether it was intended to be shared or not, and thus we are driven into situations where we disrespect and wrong each other from lack of context or understanding.And yes, you can say, in this one instance, it is really obvious that things weren’t intended to be clicked on by you.
0 kommentar(er)
