Lurker > Pogo_Marimo

thronedfire2 posted...

tough on certain crimes but not others*
tough on immigration, but willing to illegally traffic immigrants to other states*
third thingmaybe?

Third thing is legit. People like to bad mouth conservatives but they never give them credit for Third Thing.

Absolutely fake. They, especially him, sound like they're reading from a script.

Edit: To note, there are definitely weirdos out there that would do this stuff. This is just obviously staged.

justaguy3492 posted...

Holy shit, his entire personality is culture war nonsense. Does he have any policy positions at all?

Tax Cuts
Tough on Crime/Immigration
Third Thing

COVxy posted...

The value of a decision does not need to be calculated in reference to the agent who made it.

This topic was literally created by TC to ask what CE thought about this, ethically.

This is true.

Smashingpmkns posted...

Not sure why we're comparing regular porn with deep fake porn. Regular porn involves consenting adults that are being paid. Sure there are porn stars that are trafficked and coerced, but if you're looking for that kind of stuff specifically that is also fucking wrong lol

All deep fake porn is done without consent, and if you're actively looking for deep fake porn that is also wrong.

Like again, just for one second of post nut clarity, think about how these women feel.

Have you ever thought about... How porn stars feel? Because I can assure you, the large majority of them upon leaving the industry report symptoms like PTSD, report a litany of physical abuses, report wide scale exploitation, ect. Just because the woman "consented" at the time of the creation of the video does not mean the video was produced ethically. Again, there is an alternative, and that is not watching porn. However, if you do watch porn, and you are not extremely strict about what content you watch, then you are as much contributing to a massive problem as this twitch streamer is watching a deepfake. His blunder just unfortunately had a much deeper interpersonal issue involved in it, which, you know, sucks to be him. That's pretty cringe.

ArchNemo posted...

In fact, let's do this. I think all porn is unethical too, and the entire industry should be condemned and torn down.

What does that change about people in this topic unapologetically stating that they will continue to gladly jerk off to porn of people who they know have not consented to porngraphic material being made of them, because they don't think it's unethical?

I, uh, don't think your opinion changes anything. To me, they are flawed people who are participating in a harmful system perpetrated primarily by the creators of unethical content. The only difference is their indiscretions have been brought to light, wherein I have no access to your porn history to parse it for indiscretions which, let's be honest here, you would never even acknowledge or notice in the first place.

As just a small addendum, here is my brief CE survey of the PH wipe.

Was PH's massive deletion of videos a mistake/bad decision?
Results (43 votes)
Yes 65.12%28
No 34.88%15

This deletion of content was specifically done to remove a massive database of potentially unethical videos from the platform. The two big things they wanted to remove with this was Non-Consensual uploads and CP. Despite that, around 2/3rds of GameFAQs CE board believe that it was still a mistake. I don't make this post to shame these people for their opinions, although I disagree with them. I post this to demonstrate the cultural acceptance of unethical porn in general and the permissiveness we have towards porn being uploaded without checks and balances. This is what normal sexual behavior looks like in 2023. This is the conversation to have, not a conversation where we brashly declare other people in the conversation don't care about consent because deepfakes are weird and people's relationship with porn is weird.

Tyranthraxus posted...

The kinds of flak they get is invisible. Fraud is insane with porn purchases and that's just the legal kind. We don't see it but they're fighting it in court all the time. If it was harder for people to call their bank and say "No I definitely did not buy Anus Annihilator 27 please charge back" then maybe PH wouldn't have had this problem.

That's a pretty interesting take.

ArchNemo posted...

So your take is essentially that you believe that deepfakes are unethical, non-consensual, and wrong but that we shouldn't judge people that unrepentantly and continually indulge in it?

Because the people who are defending the streamer, and who you are defending, are straight up saying that what he did isn't wrong and that they will continue to indulge in non-consensual porn. And that this is the same as people who can't possibly be privvy to the background of everything they consume.

What I am saying is that our consumption of porn is deeply unethical regardless of what anyone claims when they talk shit on the internet. Just look at your very own statement:

"Nobody is choosing to be ignorant, but the average person can't possibly be aware of every instance of injustice in every industry of everything they consume."

My brother in Christ, you do not have to consume porn if you do not have obvious positive proof that it is ethical. You still choose to consume the porn because the alternative is inconvenient.

If you are making a choice to consume a piece of porn, then the ethical requirement would be for you to get satisfactory evidence that it was produced AND distributed ethically. You do not do that. I do not do that. Basically nobody does that. The reason is because it's inconvenient. The alternative is not watching porn. That's right. Not watching porn is also an option, and it's guaranteed to be ethical. Ignorance of your transgressions is not an excuse to continue to make the same poor choices that lead to unethical behavior 5 times a week to destress after work.

Want to know ways to make your porn choices more ethical? Go buy porn directly from independent producers with no history of allegations or criminal charges. Research who the directors and producers are of a piece of porn you want to watch and see if they have any red flags. Check to make sure the porn was filmed somewhere with comprehensive and safe regulations to protect workers. Because watching porn without positive evidence of it being produced ethically... Is like having sex without positive affirmation of consent.

Now, does everything I just said make you mad? Was your instinctive reaction to go, "No, that's not true! Because, when, because... It can't be true because it's not the same!" Yeah, well, that's called cognitive dissonance. I don't know how many times I need to say it, but none of us are ethical consumers of porn. We steal it from tube sites and do no research whatsoever. Just assuming it's ethical doesn't mean you're meeting a reasonable ethical standard just like assuming you have consent does not mean you have consent. What you're doing is not ethical. What your doing is shrugging your shoulders and saying, "Good enough!", then pretending you're superior to others. You're not. Get off your high horse. If you can't even critically analyze your own behavior to root out the deeply seeded exploitations you justify every day then you have no right to judge another. Because as soon as we stop being so fucking judgmental of everyone, we can actually see each other face to face the way we really are--Flawed, horny, with poor judgment, but sometimes with good intentions. All of use. Equally.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Frankly, I've had multiple medium roasts that didn't have enough of the good coffee flavors I want from a cuppa coffee. It's more that the cream really helps balance the bitters that I still want in it.

Questionmarktarius posted...

They did it anyway, and still haven't got Visa or Mastercard back, last I checked.

It's always weird to think about because, like, was VISA or MasterCard actually catching flak for that? I'm sure their income from PH was negligible but still, weird thing to do largely unprompted.

masterpug53 posted...

That's fair. I do have a lot of missing posts in this topic, so it's clear that I'm literally ignoring one of the juicier meltdowns. I guess I was focusing exclusively on Pogo in this instance, who's being more and more obviously disingenuous with every post.

In what ways am I being disingenuous? I have stated everything I believe. Deepfakes are deeply unethical and should be banned, just like other forms of unethical distribution/production of porn. People constantly and knowingly consume unethical porn despite that though--The most abundant example of this is theft, wherein a video is reuploaded without permission to tube sites. I won't go through more examples in this post. Most porn viewers don't even make a cursory effort to ensure their porn is ethical--That is to say, purchasing or consuming porn from companies and content creators with a ethical track record. The reason for this is extremely obvious--Convenience and cost. Despite that, certain people are absolutely chomping at the bit to criticize someone else's viewing habits because it is another great lolcow for them to laugh at or hate. I find the hypocrisy disturbing but, of course, no one wants to confront their own hypocrisy--Thus, I have had virulent misrepresentations made about my arguments. For example:

1. I love deepfakes. I don't. I think they're pretty gross but the underlying motivation to watch them is very obviously understandable.
2. I don't think deepfakes are unethical. That's obviously not true as I've said multiple times. Ban deepfakes, they are an essentially non-consensual use of a person's likeness for potentially damaging reasons.
3. I'm providing a smokescreen of unethical porn. I'm not. If I could snap my finger and make non-consensual or exploitative porn disappear I would. Lord knows there's enough porn on the internet that I wouldn't even notice a difference.
4. That I'm anti-woke or alt-right. I'm not. I am probably one of the more pro-communism, pro-"woke", pro-lgbtq+, pro-diversity people on this board, which is exactly in line with my views that we should be less judgmental of others for things like their sexual behaviors on line.

There, that's the topic. Have fun. I've said everything I've needed to at this point.

masterpug53 posted...

Sega hit the nail on the head when he said that people like Pogo don't actually care about any of this. They only care about that fact that some guy is getting (in their eyes) unfairly dogpiled on by the internet, and want to rush to his defense no matter the subject or context; the knee-jerk 'well you all are probably just as bad' reaction comes first, the attempted justification comes second.

Yes, I am of the shocking opinion that we should be less judgmental of others. That used to be considered a virtue, but nowadays if you're not constantly finding people to mock and hate then you're the weird one.

Sega9599 posted...

Literally your defence is "if u can't prove everyone in every porn vid you ever watched was there with full financial freedom and no pressure or manipulation or regret, it's the exact same thing as creating and distributing deep fakes of people who don't want it. Exactly the same.

I'm not defending the production of deep fakes you utter dunce. I don't know how many times I have to say that, and I quote, "Making a deepfake of someone deeply unethical" for you to get it through your thick skull. The production of unethical content should be illegal. Deepfakes should be illegal.

I'm not going to sit here and tar and feather the people who didn't make or publish the deepfake though. I'm not going to tar and feather people who steal porn (Which is all of you, you've all stolen porn and it was obvious when you stole it. I know it and you know it). I won't tar and feather people who steal music. I won't tar and feather people who've watched shady porn. I tar and feather people who've watched people die on video. I won't tar and feather people for fantasizing about people they know. I won't tar and feather people for watching exploitative videos on YouTube or Tik Tok. These are such common, normal, yet dubious actions that so many people make that we have to acknowledge that... People aren't perfect.

We live in a society that has intentionally torn down every barrier for what we could consider "ethical consumption" so that we all live in glass houses yet we all have stones. Atrioc watching those deepfakes was a dumb thing to do, but it wasn't a malicious act. A simple apology is appropriate. None of us have the standing, though, to judge him. None of us are saints.

I don't like to make generalizations but I will say my personal anecdotes definitely align with this topic

Jennywentnorth8 posted...

I am glad to see you finally agree with me! You are absolutely right! It does not matter if you buy that laptop or not at that point. So you might as well just buy it.

Man if you told me yesterday that Archnemo and I would become stalwart allies I would have called you crazy, but here we are standing hand in hand on the laptop analogy. We did it man

lol When you put it that way.

Interested in your opinions.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

I don't see how that's a weird defense considering it is stark and obvious evidence of people's complete lack of interest in ethical consumption of porn ASIDE FROM when "ethical consumption" can be used as a bludgeon against people for doing things they don't like. That's just fucking hypocrisy on its bare face. We all steal porn from hardworking porn creators, we all watch whatever pops up on our free tube sites front page, none of us spend a moment to consider the ethical creation of the porn.

Choosing to be ignorant of how unethical your porn is is not somehow a defense to how unethical your porn. You just don't care to make the effort. I don't particularly care either. But I don't sit around and judge someone else like I'm a paragon of porn morality because they want to jerk it to someone they know. Masturbating to people we know is one of the longest sexual traditions to humanity. Making a deepfake of someone is deeply unethical but it's not like masturbating to a deepfake is some completely anomalous, heinous, and non-analogous act. It's normal. It's mainstream. And it's about as unethical as a lot of the porn we already watch. The problem people have is it's new, but the problems people ignore in professional porn are significantly more harmful--Again, abuse, rape, human trafficking, non-consensual/revenge porn, intimidation, exploitation. Porn you've watched has almost certainly featured these things in the production of it, and these things were not unavoidable when you chose to watch porn. You just didn't care.

apocalyptic_4 posted...

Anyone who watches deep fake porn needs to seek help, seriously

This is exactly the kind of shit I'm talking about with my posts in this topic. Absolutely oblivious and indignant. Totally normalizing of their own inherently immoral sexual self-gratification but scathingly critical of others.

Do you watch porn? Have you watched actual porn videos of pornstars? Have you watched amateur porn? Then you have inevitably at some point watched stuff that is deeply unethical. Abusive sets, non-consensual uploads, problematic content, human trafficking, ect. You probably don't even realize because of how little you care about ethical consumption. That's fine because almost nobody cares about ethical consumption in porn. Just get off your high horse. The dude jerked off to some sketchy stuff, but he's not fucking mentally ill for it.

krazychao5 posted...

drink good coffee black

too bad we have shit coffee at office so i use hazelnut package to make it better

I can drink good coffee black but even good coffee has too much of a bite to it black. I don't need sugar in my coffee but I do need a bit of dairy to smooth it out.

The difference in taste and texture is tremendous. Kicking myself for not doing this sooner.

pauIie posted...

shit should be illegal

Yeah probably. Good luck getting that to happen with this congress though--If it doesn't have anything to do with guns, gays, or transgender people then I don't think they'll care.

DarthAragorn posted...

I would say something about cancer but the mods won't allow me

Yeah. It would be unfair to compare cancer to Republican Politicians.

Sega9599 posted...

Oh....so what if he pays for deepfakes of underage? Or his wifes sister? Or his own sister? I guess that doesn't matter because it's only fake?

Well, for starters, I literally said that deepfakes are inherently immoral.

Deepfakes of underage are certainly a very weird situation, much like that of underage/minor-coded fictional pornography. The first and most obvious issue is that deepfakes are made using real video footage with a super-imposed face, so if the actual porn features underage people that that is obviously deeply unethical and illegal. If deepfakes are immoral because they use someone's likeness without permission, then a deepfake with a child's likeness is more immoral (As far as something like "immoral" can have a measurable value).

Deepfakes of a wife's sister are not inherently more immoral, they just have a deeper personal sentimentality to a specific person, the wife. Something does not become "more immoral" just by it's proximity to the person doing the action, though, it just becomes (likely) more hurtful to that specific person. Stealing $100 from a stranger vs. someone you know are equally immoral acts, one just has sentimental ties involved.

Sega9599 posted...

Two wrongs don't make a right. They make two wrongs.

It's not creepy because the celebrities in their photos intentionally consent to that by producing AND DISTRIBUTING the material. Taking the face of someone who never consented, and producing material to pretend they did, is creepy.

If a photo is published by someone on their Instagram, in what contexts is that photo allowed to be used? Not just pornography, but in general. What consent have you received for the use of their likeness? I ask because the absolutely fundamental issue here underpins our entire modern media culture. Let me ask you this: Is this video more or less ethical than a deepfake?

https://youtube.com/watch?v=ha7smLPz2GY&si=EnSIkaIECMiOmarE

This is Trumpet Fight, a famous lolcow video. This video is mostly consumed in a manner that mocks or disparages the main person, described as "Crazed New Yorker". Did this video have the consent of this "Crazed New Yorker" to be posted? Does this video cause the "Crazed New Yorker" emotional distress or embarrassment? You having watched it, or any video similar to it, do you deeply regret having watched it due to it's potentially non-consensual nature? Do you think watching videos like this should be a cause for shaming to the point of a coerced apology, much like what has happened to the Streamer of this topic? Why is this video, which details a non-consensually shared piece of media which harms the non-consenting "Crazed New Yorker", just another Epic Fail Video on the internet with 6.3 million views, while the deepfake of Pokimane is worth such protest and shaming?

It is NOT the same. That's like your friends producing material of you specifically to jack off to. How would you not feel weird if you found out? You'd say "oh I used to fantasise about Pamela Anderson, so it's the same thing. No worries bro."

That's fine. As far as I'm concerned the creation of media based on my likeness does not in anyway negatively affect me unless the media is made explicitly to deceive others. If anything, I'm happy my likeness can bring comfort to others, but I realize that's not a universal opinion. Furthermore, however, if I never even knew about the porn they made of me I would never have any reason to be harmed in the first place. If I can only be harmed by an act because the action itself is explicitly revealed to me, then that likely means the actually act itself was not inherently immoral--The issue arose because of complex social expectations that I have of myself, my friend, and my values regarding sex, all of which were informed by the arbitrary values of the culture in which I was raised.

As for curiosity, that drives a lot of things. People watch car crashes on Youtube. Will it be ok to watch deepfakes of your friends being in car crashes?

Uh... sure. I can already create my friend's likeness in GTA 5 and crash them into stuff using the Cinematic Mode to produce fairly realistic facsimiles of their gruesome death. They would probably think it's funny.

There are people and situations you shouldn't be fantasizing over.

Sure. I believe fantasizing can reinforce anti-social or unethical behavior, so there are things I can advise not to fantasize about for practical reasons. The issue ethically, however, isn't the fantasizing since fantasizing does not in itself cause harm. We can extrapolate that fantasizing may lead to, for instance, obsessive behaviors, and those obsessive behaviors may be unethical. But the fantasizing itself did not cause the harm. We can also extrapolate that fantasizing may not lead to obsessive behavior, and then no harm is caused, and thus the act was not unethical. If you can fantasize about something without it causing harm, then it's not unethical. We can fantasize about absolutely anything without actually causing harm to another.

WingsOfGood posted...

Wow getting defensive now

I'm not defensive, I'm accepting of other people's flaws, especially regarding something as dubious and morally gray as internet porn and masturbation. What I'm not tolerant of is people who are intentionally ignorant of their own transgressions, who weaponize this self-ignorance against others to feel morally superior.

masterpug53 posted...

There's a difference between, say, privately jacking it while thinking about Janice in accounting, and telling your coworkers that you jacked it last night to Janice while Janice is well within earshot down the hall, or scribbling a crude porno of said fantasy on a notepad and brainlessly leaving it lying on your desk for Janice to notice as she walks by. And that difference is how much Janice doesn't deserve to be creeped out by this information.

I mean yeah, obviously, and it wasn't this dude's intent to broadcast it either. He got caught lacking by his chat with an honest mistake. He had a tab up on browser by mistake. I don't mind him doing an apology, what aggravates me is the indignant losers on here who think they're a model citizen when they jerk. No, you aren't. You'd be publicly humiliated if your most embarassing fantasies or porn watches were brought to light too. Stop being so judgemental.

NoMeLx22x posted...

Bro if you need someone to slowly explain to you why actively seeking out (and paying for) deep fake material of your very good friends wives/girlfriends (or just your own personal good friends who think of you very highly) is extremely creepy behavior then you're beyond help anyways.

I mean, paying for it is definitely cringe no doubt. That's some coomer brain shit. I don't believe, however, that you can morally draw a line between fantasizing about someone sexually and watching a fake video of them. The issue either way comes down to consent, and in neither case do you have consent to masturbate to their likeness. We've all, especially when we were younger, masturbated to pictures of celebrities or acquintances in bikinis or sexy photos. I'm not going to deny that, and I'm not going to believe you if you deny that. Men do it and women do it. So why isn't that extremely creepy behavior too? Furthermore, I can GUARANTEE most men and probably most women would watch a convincing video of their crush in a deepfake, if not at least for curiosity--Most people just don't have the luxury of that being an option.

What I can't stand is people, like most posters on this board, who have watched depraved porn, amateur porn of uncertain publishing consent, or nude leaks from celebrities, acting indignant at the thought that the dude wanted to jerk off to Pokimane. Of course he wants to jerk off to Pokimane. Most people men would because she'a very attractive. None of us are rational thinkers when we're horny in the privacy of our own home and none of us are sitting here trying to calculate the most ethical way to get off while we're browsing porn online.

You've watched very unethical porn in your life, even if you may not even know it, and you certainly don't care that you did it. You've never apologized for it either. Get off your high horse.

I would prefer my Karen's not to say anything while full-throated.

Edit: Wait, I misread the topic. Let me rephrase that.

"I would prefer to full-throat Karen's with my Hard D"

Shit I'm not making this any better, am I?

IDK dude, people have always jacked off thinking of their attractive friends and co-workers. Obviously seeking out deepfakes of your friends and co-workers is an extremely niche problem to even be able to have, but.... How much worse is it than watching porn and thinking about fucking your friend while masturbating? One of them has a computer put a fake face on a porn star, and the other one has your imagination put a fake face on the porn star.

Deepfakes are morally wrong, but really let's not pretend this behavior is some weird anomaly from normal human sexual behavior. If we could all turn our sexual imagination into something real and tangible we would. Furthermore, we have all masturbated to material that was not explicitly made for sexual gratification with implied permission from the creator to masturbate to. Deep fakes are just the new and strange thing.

Bad choice if you're looking to stand and deliver on hardwood, unfortunately.

Flush with clean water and bandage.

Solar_Crimson posted...

Whose alt is this?

He posts on the NBA board. He had a tag from me that may or may not relate to his views on race.

BoyOfBattle posted...

i'd like to see woke lolmericans' take on this lmao

Racism... Is... Still bad?

Don't care, wake me up when there's a proper Horse Fighting Tycoon game.

Gretzky was unusually brilliant even among other legends of sports. Only guy that surpasses him to my knowledge is Sir Donald Bradman and even then Bradman might get asterisks for the era he played.

ROBANN_88 posted...

Was that the town where people wanted to kill an angel or something but one dude went "no, take my daughters instead"?

I may be misremembering that story

Yeah, that's Lot. Genesis 19:111. An old classic--You can rape my two daughters, just don't rape my house guest!

Yeah, that God, he's a real prankster.

Imagine how everybody else would have reacted at this dude just pretending like everything was normal after his wife died. They probably had some deeply rooted traditions to honor the dead and this dude just had to be like, "Nah bro. No thanks."

yemmy posted...

LOL I don't know what happened.

You guys are the ones assuming I have some drawn out theory as to why dude was smiling and holding a fucking drink when the cops showed up.

So if you don't have any ideas of your own, on what grounds are you challenging other people's reasonable explanations? You aren't exactly employing the Socratic method here either. Just saying "No you're wrong" after asking for an explanation makes it almost look... like... You already have reached a conclusion but you're just not willing to say it because it's a nasty conspiracy theory.

yemmy posted...

"when the cops come hold your cocktail with your left hand and hold my hammer with your right and smile"

Totally normal exchange of words my friend!

It sounds to me like Paul was trying to prevent himself from being beaten to death by a lunatic before the cops arrived by making himself non-threatening (Which you should do if you're not capable of fighting back because you're an old man). That could be things like having conversation, making both of you drinks, that kind of stuff. When the cops arrived he was probably told not to say anything or he would get hit with a hammer. When they opened the door Paul probably grabbed the hammer to give the cops time to subdue the suspect but didn't say anything because the assailant wasn't strongly resisting him. Then the assailant started panicking when the cops started talking to him, wrestled the hammer free and started attacking Paul.

This fits the normal psych profile of these types of people. They are delusional and impulsive and don't understand why they're doing what they're doing. When things were calm he felt he had control because Paul was being generally non-resistant. His delusion was probably that when the police arrived he would convince them to leave. Then he panicked when he saw the police and realized he lost control of the situation as soon as he let Paul call 911. So he resorted to violence, which is common when people like this panic.

Also:

ScazarMeltex posted...

Say what you mean.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Well, it was a pretty confusing sight I must say. Pelosi was obviously afraid to say anything because the assailant had been telling him not to say anything (You can hear it on the 911 call). So it was just two guys standing next to each other both holding a hammer and looking at the police. Police were also trying to deescalate to start with as they should, but I agree they were slow to react to the struggle.

The Fr*nch

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

I may be cynical, but not so much as this video is. But maybe I'm wrong, maybe this video was not shot with the intention of fooling stupid people into thinking it's real. Or maybe you argue it was and that's not somehow incredibly cynical and juvenile or something.

Ask yourself, would this by funny if it was shot like a normal skit? Probably not? Because then the piece would be asking you to suspend your disbelief so you can engage with it as something made with intention. It would probably seem like an extremely obvious joke, perhaps even dated like a bit from a 1940s comedy movie. So it's not shot like a skit, it's shot like it's real. And it's done that way to convince you you don't have to suspend your disbelief. Because it's real. And on Tik-Tok, I'm sure there's tens or even hundreds of thousands of people who thought it was real at first, and after learning it was fake, don't think it's as funny anymore. Because that's just a fundamental fact of comedy--Things are funnier when their real and spontaneous, so to actually come up with a joke that lands means you have to actual have a bit of talent and chops. But hey, just don't think about it! If you just don't think about it it's funny!

Personally, I just don't want to live in a society where we constantly encourage people to appreciate being actively deceived because the alternative is being a buzzkill. Then that deception is used as an avenue to drive engagement on a platform designed to advertise useless garbage to you and reinforce destructive over-consumption ideals in our kids and teenagers. What a horrible synergy of programming we're complicit in. But don't be cynical! Being cynical is the problem! Just turn your brain off!

Plus, there's the whole issue of depicting little people as 1. Fetishes and, 2. Something worth laughing at. That's a common issue in comedy that's frankly pretty minor/overblown though, imo.

One of the keys to comedy is to punch up. Making fun of little people is just punching down.

(Pun intended, shut the fuck up idc)

The_X_Dawg posted...

Hate all of that.

This.

Plus, shut down the bar where this started. What the actual fuck.

So why are you talking to us about it?

That's Capitalism, Baby! Ethics don't make money, so non-ethical companies will always eventually beat them out of the market given a large enough time frame.

Did a little bit of research and, as best I can tell, common law marriage in Texas requires both parties to represent themselves as married to others. As to what qualifies as proof of that by the court I'm not entirely sure, but that sounds like what the issue to prove is.

GranolaPanic posted...

Its JK Rowling.

God damn

I'm not surprised.

I think there is enough reasonable doubt not to convict. Anything beyond that is kind of just pointless speculation.