You have made it clear you oppose her efforts on the basis of her earlier transgressions.
Absolutely I call you immoral.
Under your Pharisaical standards there is zero room for King David or the Apostle Paul, both of whom were orders of magnitude more immoral than merely giving a boyfriend a salacious picture.
I suppose you might he considered moral by other Muslims if you are following Islam. But under Judaism or Christianity repentance and restoration are moral principles whether you like it or not.
There is none perfect.
No, not one.
So, all that is left is should it be allowed to spread naked pictures of people all over? I say it is not. The woman says it is not. We have you on record for supporting the position that it is not okay to oppose the spreading of naked images if someone ever spread one around of you. Ergot, you are against opposing the naked pictures while claiming not to be for them.
Passive aggressive you are.
Self righteous you are.
Moral, you are not. Unless its Islamic morality.
“So, all that is left is should it be allowed to spread naked pictures of people all over? I say it is not. The woman says it is not.”
I agree with both of you. It is not OK to spread naked pictures of people all over! ;-)
I think that where we disagree is the fact that she is now trying to ‘cash-in’. She has started a ‘non-profit’ organization to combat the illegal and unauthorized posting of naked pictures on the internet. I agree with that portion of her ‘crusade’.
However, ‘Non-profit’ = She does not have to report the ‘earnings’ to anyone and gets to pocket all of the ‘cash’ that is not used to combat the evil of posting illegal and unauthorized photographs on the internet. ;-)
Is not that a parallel to politicians seeking candidacy getting $1 million in donations but spending only $500, 000? Where does the other $500, 000 go?