LoadingXML wrote: Sat Jul 11, 2026 6:47 pm
Said guy with no objective morality to begin with.
for someone with real objective morality such as me, recording people's voice without consent falls into "spying" in sense that the caller is giving you, and only you this speech, and doesn't (in most cases) want anyone but you to have it.
What determines whether it is "objective?" It's not objective, it's your subjective view.
If you don't trust someone with something, you shouldn't say it in the first place, just like you wouldn't tell them in real life, regardless of whether they are recording it.
If he bullied students, like a group of 5 students in one go, then they are all witnesses that can go to administrative office and signal him.
Video and audio evidence is stronger than any number of witnesses. The 5 students can be accused of "being partisian", meaning "being in the same team", having made up a story against a teacher they dislike, so the 5 witnesses count as one, and having embellished the story.
See also:
You Live In A Dangerous Age - So Get Insurance - Coach Red Pill (CRP Classics) by Gonzalo Lira.
Of course, I wouldn't recommend anyone to do this if they live in a country with crappy laws that prohibit it.
(Image omitted due to large size) Wait, embedding images from Reddit works? I didn't know that! The image belongs to
this post.
If the teachers who are mean to their students think their behavior is justified, if they are proud of it, they shouldn't mind having it publicly exposed.
Surely concerning lol, usually a guy who is a real threat doesn't call over phone to threaten you.
It can also happen in real life, for example a woman can threaten a man with false claims of so-called "sexual harassment" (which isn't clearly defined and based on the woman's feelings), knowing that in this society, most people would side with the woman. See the aforementioned video by Gonzalo Lira.
lol
Don't you find Jim Browning and Scammer Payback funny? For example,
Accessing a scammer's PC, 4:05, where the scammers insulted Jim Browning, realizing they had been caught.
By being a rapper, you are already humiliated, like you don't need more.
Yes, it is hilarious to see con artists publicly humiliated.
If you think all rap is bad, you don't know Kollegah yet.
Meanwhile I got a story in germany, about someone threatening a woman to expose her images if she doesn't marry him, she told her husband, and with help of german police, made a phone call and made him expose himself live.
So this is idiotic really...
Even if there is a possibility of getting them to expose themselves, not being able to record them still limits your options for holding them accountable. You
have to get police involved to hold them accountable. You have no evidence to share to a friend or relative, to warn them.
And by "her images", do you mean unclothed pictures? I think the man would hurt his own reputation if he did this, not that of the woman, except if the woman is cheating or committing paternity fraud. This would be an effective treatment against such women, see:
In these situations you could SIMPLY GET THE CONSENT.
Morally speaking, why would their consent matter if they are dead soon anyway? It doesn't hurt them, does it?
as for the terminally ill person, I found you recording him instead of ACTUALLY CARING ABOUT THE SITUATION is rather delusional.
Preserving memories with them = caring about them.
