For example it's absolutely true that women and men are exposed to different ranges of testosterone in utero, but to draw a causal link between that and the rate at which they become programmers takes an enormous leap of faith.
No, it doesn't require a leap of faith. It requires a review of facts and evidence. For example, the bell curves for IQs between genders. That is a factual set of data which is being ignored for the SJW/PC narratives.
How about the amount of women CHOOSING to get into STEM versus CHOOSING other field, especially considering that the majority of college graduates in all levels of education has been dominated by women for nearly 2 decades and was pretty even for the decade or two prior.
How about degree choices for women in other Western Cultures, or where similar income levels exist. Women in higher standards of living tend to choose STEM less, where with a lower standard of living they choose STEM more.
Now would you also like to see studies on emotions when women take testosterone or men take estrogen? Those exist too,, but fact it. Any facts that go against the "keep the peons fighting" narrative they are ignored.
"overrun not with conservatives"? Are you joking? People just got fed up with the bullshit narratives from the marxists and extreme leftists promoting whacko ideology over facts on a site that is supposed to be a "news for nerds" site.
Today, you can't post without a high risk being modded a troll or flaimbait if you are a conservative. Rational dialogue has gone out the window, and the leftist extreme has become the celebrated and norm..
Truth is not a troll. Read the study from Harvard, which is not a "right wing" organization. Slashdot Admins need to address this chronic shit moderation by people who despise facts found harmful to extreme leftist ideology and start promoting unbiased moderation. Read your own fucking moderation guidelines!
Not that long ago (a bit more than a decade or so) Cars didn't have GPS. Long before we had them at all, I used to drive regularly from Detroit to DC and Texas. I could even make it back from those destinations!:O
When I moved from Detroit to CA, I planned my route with maps and drove based on my instructions with maps as a backup. I can tell East from West by looking at the Sun, so I can tell if I'm going the right direction. All of this stuff used to be 2nd nature to people. Now I have to read about some person's heroic effort to travel about 500 miles? Really?
If you wish to debate in a language you don't yet master, its a good idea to learn a bit when possible. I speak a bit of German, but won't argue with Germans about the way in which things are said in German.
Boston grew up around it's ports. That is not literal, meaning the city didn't exist until a port was put in. The city existed before a single dock was ever built. Additional docks meant more roadways, more warehouses, more train/truck garages and maintenance, more housing to support all the workers needed to work all of those things, and of course larger police and fire departments to support those things as well. The same growth can be said for trains, airplanes, and even bus depots in some areas.
It is more what we would refer to as a symbiotic relationship, but the reality is that a city will grow to meet the available transportation. That is the nature of the figurative term "the city grew up around [insert transportation]".
Quite a few, if you yourself are unbiased. Immigration reform, promised for the last 40 years and finally some activity. Tax reform, promised for 30 years and finally some activity. Trade deals which benefit Americans as opposed to harming Americans, ignored by Democrats in all branches for the last 30 years and seeing some positive results. A valid replacement for the Constitutional originalist Antony Scalia, definitely a positive. Attempting to reduce federal power and push issues back to States, also a positive.
There are surely negatives as well, but not what you hear on CNN or read in WAPO or NYT. In fact you won't hear about things like Lumber tariffs and their negative impact, because they have a bogey man to chase. Dumb people who can't discern fact from innuendo seem to buy into it to an extent.
The way to get net neutrality is to convince Republicans that it is important,
Now that Trump TV has gotten off the ground, and we have our first official state-run media outlet, there is no longer a need for net neutrality, which is so 2015.
You have a monopoly controlling all media in the US which despises everything except the extreme leftist view, and worry about TrumpTV which has never aired a show? 98% of CNN's coverage is negative, and refusal to air non-leftist positions for nearly a decade, MSNBC at 97% and the same. NYT and WAPO both openly stated last summer that they would no longer have a neutral position and would try to destroy Trump, promoting fabricated news just like CNN to further their leftist ideology. And to be sure we don't limit censorship and bias to print and TV, Google, Facebook, and Twitter have all been censoring opinions from the right and promoting far Leftism as well.
Hell, even Fox which gets accused of supporting Trump has 52% negative coverage and a whole slew of far left wing progressive shows where no right wing opinions are allowed and even centrist opinions are discouraged.
You are worried about some Station that is new and never aired a show while nearly everything you get is propaganda? Good grief!
I simply pointed out that the parent who claimed: "the cities are build around train stations" is wrong.
Which was my post and I have defended it to your "nuh uh, I'm putting my head in the sand" defense a few times. Your latest answer, more "nuh uh, I'm putting my head in the sand.
Nobody claimed that cities would not be there without train stations in Japan, so you are arguing against terminology not used. That aside, in larger countries like Russia and the US cities _DID_ grow up literally because of train stations and would not have existed without them. That was not mentioned because the US does not have successful commuter rail.
first there were cities.
then there came rails and train stations.
So: cities are not designed around railways.
Yes they are. Contrary to your asinine assertion, cities are not stagnant and formed with all buildings and transit systems in place. Cities are in a constant state of change, _primarily_ based on transportation and changes to the transportation _systems_ available.
Since train stations were part of the city and built to be more than just pick up and drop off spots, the cities grew around the train stations. Quite literally, the largest buildings and more expensive property in Osaka and Kobe sit closer to the train station, and as you move further away the buildings get smaller and cheaper.
Yes, but in ancient times there were small buildings and some guy simply build a train station there. So what is your point? The city was there first, then came the train station. It never happens other way around.
And as with above, the city existing does not mean it did not grow and change over time. To make such an assertion is simply absurd. Perhaps you should get a grasp on basic words, like "grow". You see, a child grows up. In order for that to happen, the child must exist. Saying a child can't grow up around pets because the child already existed would be a moronic statement made by a loon worthy of institutionalization. If that last word is too big for you, change it to "special person's home".
I'm pretty sure Japan had cities before they where "designed around trains" (what ever that is supposed to mean).
Ahh, so you are ignorant. "I'm pretty sure Japan had cities before" No kidding?!?! So did Germany, France, Russia, and even the US, as well as every other country that has trains.
"designed around trains" (what ever that is supposed to mean) Based on history, I'm guessing your rhetorical statement is being an ass instead of actually asking what it means, but I can still try to educate the innocent. If you travel to Japan you will notice that Train stations are A) very large B) sit in the city centers, C) are well maintained (clean), and D) contain much more than trains and access to them. The train stations have dozens of stores, restaurants, and other shops in addition to the ticket booths, help counters, and guards (the latter 2 not very common in the US at all).
I'll compare that to DC's Metro, and CA's BART, VTA, and Caltrain. Train stations sit in the cheapest property next to very little. Usually a bus pickup location, but not much else. Since people use them to commute only, they tend to be filthy and less secure than anywhere else in a city. You are lucky to have functional vending machines in a US train station, and even luckier to find a small shop to buy a sandwich. In fact between Caltrain, VTA, and Bart I know of 2 whole stations between SF and San Jose with 3 whole shops between them. VTA and BART generally don't even have a rest room at their stops, let alone a vending machine. (VTA being much worse than BART)
Since train stations were part of the city and built to be more than just pick up and drop off spots, the cities grew around the train stations. Quite literally, the largest buildings and more expensive property in Osaka and Kobe sit closer to the train station, and as you move further away the buildings get smaller and cheaper.
Without an indicator, no, it is not possible to catch sarcasm on certain subjects. If you have not seen or noticed the constant and chronic anti-America posts, they have become quite prevalent virtually everywhere in media.
Before you say something like "but my post was obviously ludicrous" (which it was knowing it was sarcasm) just remember that genders are infinite and not controlled by biology, UBI and Socialism are "fixes" for the US, and paying money to invisible entities fixes all of our climate woes. (some sarcasm also, just in case)
Wrong! The biggest issue with trains in the US can be discovered with a basic Geography class. See post here. I have no idea how you missed so much US history, but we had enormous use of trains from he 1800s to mid/later 1900s. The advent and improvement of commercial airplanes reduced our dependency on trains greatly.
I stated that there are numerous reasons things work in Japan, or other countries that are heavy train users for that matter, and quite frankly amazed that I have to point them out.
Distance between Tokyo and Kobe, 320 miles. That is a bit more than half of the whole country of Japan. Distance beween Kobe and Osaka, or Osaka and Kyoto is between 20 and 30 miles.
Compare that to say the two largest cities in just California, 404 miles apart. SF and the Middle of the country, 1,800 miles. Distance between coasts at around 3,000.
Now do that same comparison with Germany, or France, or the UK, or Spain, or any other county you wish. As the land mass increases (Russia/India/China) the use of trains becomes more and more local and long distance commuting gets less and less.
A high speed train won't convert people, because the time savings even at 300 MPH like a bullet train means hours (plural) on a train to get between cities that you can fly in an hour. I hope I don't need to state that Trains will have stops (like in Japan, Germany, etc..) so you are not going a direct route at top speed ever. The fastest bullet trains between Tokyo and Osaka will take you on average 6 hours, even though it's only 300 miles. You can fly from Tokyo to Osaka in less than an hour.
Trains are problematic in the US for numerous reasons, so even having a "fast" train won't solve many issues. Japan has a functional train system with cities designed around them. citation but once you need to get away from the main train station the novelty of trains quickly wears off.
Like you, I prefer to work white/green on black. Some of the newer utility color schemes (vim) suck with a black background, so you need either turn off the colors or change background to white.
You're dodging that I've used your own reasoning to equate your continued existence as murder.
Perhaps in your own mind, but no you have not. Your assertion that this person doing something and giving that data away for personal gain is the equivalent to a person who works for an NGO and counts as overhead is simply ludicrous. The reductio ad absurdem to claim I am a murderer is based on your former fallacious logic. Fallacy of a Fallacy != logical, it makes you more irrational..
I have repeatedly provided the way to reference my point in debate, and given you two questions to answer. Lets see if you did, or if you are just running in circles as to avoid a basic moral question.
And reading further, you simply ignored the basic questions about TFA and continue on your ludicrousness. If your position was close to rational I'd say "good troll", but as is I can't tell if you are trolling or mentally deranged.
No, I'm comparing the non-government organization (ProPublica)'s arguments to yours, and carrying them to completion, as a way to demonstrate your argument in a more-relatable context.
Okay, I'll play along for now.
You claim that this person's actions can provide him a potential monetary benefit somewhere down the line, thus he has taken action for personal gain, regardless of all other factors or circumstance.
What other factors or circumstances? The person did, or did not take action for personal gain. As stated twice previously, if the action was not for personal gain they would have reported in a different fashion, and probably to a different location.
Your "other factors or circumstances" is exactly what I referred to as moral relativism.
Example: If you see a 100 dollar bill on the ground and pick it up and keep it, you either did or did not commit the act. Whether the 100 dollar bill came out of a millionaires pocket, or is the life savings of a homeless addict on the street makes no difference.
I pointed out a similar claim made by someone else about cost overhead, and carried it out to its conclusion (that people's wages are also "overhead" and they should just work for free), and then carried that conclusion even farther into the absurd to demonstrate that your personal actions are the cause of somebody's suffering and, likely, somebody's death, all for your own personal financial gain by securing employment.
What is absurd is trying to establish this persons actions as a moral equivalence to an NGO's overhead.
Simple questions we can arrive at using the Socratic method. I didn't elaborate this at the start, but assume most people can get to them on their own. No moral equivalences or relativity, simple yes or no.
1. Did the person release this information for personal gain?
2. Did the media use the information as a public good to teach people the dangers of phishing and how to avoid being a victim, or or to put out a negative message about the information source?
I have yet to see you actually defend the person who gave the data to CNN or defend the Media for their altruistic use of the data.
Sgt. Keller: "Follow me upstairs, like, now."
Joe: "Right now? W-- Shouldn't I train this guy?"
Sgt. Keller: "I think he can figure out how to sit on his ass and watch TV all day."
Wait, you accuse me of going to ridiculous lengths talking about the same guy and his actions while you have to jump to a NGO which didn't do anything at all similar to this person? Who is going to ridiculous lengths to justify their opinion exactly? What we have here is called a case of projection.
I don't believe you fully understand moral relativism. Moral relativism is changing the rules when you believe it suits your position or beliefs instead of from a position of pure good/evil, true/false, justice/injustice. Scale can be a factor used in moral relativism, but certainly not the only way people manipulate morality to fit their particular belief.
I gave the example of the person who gave the information to CNN being altruistic. Doing so anonymously. I further gave how media could have used the information in a positive way. Not altruistic by any stretch of the imagination, but more beneficial to society. You have not countered my example of those two entities (the only two in the story). You use gross generalizations which include the famous appeal to emotion "people are suffering and dying because they don't have jobs" and an NGO. WTF?
This guy's "personal gain" was some Internet fame.
Not quite. You do realize that TV shows quite often _pay_ for people to appear. There is of course what you mention with internet fame, but I'll add that the person also gained "media" fame for paid appearance even if he didn't get paid this time. Book deals, interviews, etc... That he didn't get information to hack into a bank account or commit direct blackmail does not mean he doesn't gain financially by releasing the information to a media outlet.
If the motivation was truly altruistic as you are attempting to imply, he could have released the information anonymously.
CNN is attempting to draw attention for personal gain, and laying out a narrative to influence thought
On this we agree.
I think we disagree on principle, where I don't subscribe to moral relativism. You may not see this issue as moral relativism if you assume the person released the information because of altruism. I gave the reason why I don't believe it was altruistic.
I used the term promiscuous intentionally. Promiscuity is defined as indiscriminate mingling or association. Sexual relations is often a part of that, but not required. Flirting is often associated, but not required. Petting could be a part of it, but not required. Etc... Fantasizing in the way you describe would be covered as well. If you have a better term I could have used, feel free to let me know.
Slashdot Mirror
For example it's absolutely true that women and men are exposed to different ranges of testosterone in utero, but to draw a causal link between that and the rate at which they become programmers takes an enormous leap of faith.
No, it doesn't require a leap of faith. It requires a review of facts and evidence. For example, the bell curves for IQs between genders. That is a factual set of data which is being ignored for the SJW/PC narratives.
How about the amount of women CHOOSING to get into STEM versus CHOOSING other field, especially considering that the majority of college graduates in all levels of education has been dominated by women for nearly 2 decades and was pretty even for the decade or two prior.
How about degree choices for women in other Western Cultures, or where similar income levels exist. Women in higher standards of living tend to choose STEM less, where with a lower standard of living they choose STEM more.
Now would you also like to see studies on emotions when women take testosterone or men take estrogen? Those exist too,, but fact it. Any facts that go against the "keep the peons fighting" narrative they are ignored.
"overrun not with conservatives"? Are you joking? People just got fed up with the bullshit narratives from the marxists and extreme leftists promoting whacko ideology over facts on a site that is supposed to be a "news for nerds" site.
Today, you can't post without a high risk being modded a troll or flaimbait if you are a conservative. Rational dialogue has gone out the window, and the leftist extreme has become the celebrated and norm..
Truth is not a troll. Read the study from Harvard, which is not a "right wing" organization. Slashdot Admins need to address this chronic shit moderation by people who despise facts found harmful to extreme leftist ideology and start promoting unbiased moderation. Read your own fucking moderation guidelines!
Not that long ago (a bit more than a decade or so) Cars didn't have GPS. Long before we had them at all, I used to drive regularly from Detroit to DC and Texas. I could even make it back from those destinations! :O
When I moved from Detroit to CA, I planned my route with maps and drove based on my instructions with maps as a backup. I can tell East from West by looking at the Sun, so I can tell if I'm going the right direction. All of this stuff used to be 2nd nature to people. Now I have to read about some person's heroic effort to travel about 500 miles? Really?
If you wish to debate in a language you don't yet master, its a good idea to learn a bit when possible. I speak a bit of German, but won't argue with Germans about the way in which things are said in German.
Boston grew up around it's ports. That is not literal, meaning the city didn't exist until a port was put in. The city existed before a single dock was ever built. Additional docks meant more roadways, more warehouses, more train/truck garages and maintenance, more housing to support all the workers needed to work all of those things, and of course larger police and fire departments to support those things as well. The same growth can be said for trains, airplanes, and even bus depots in some areas.
It is more what we would refer to as a symbiotic relationship, but the reality is that a city will grow to meet the available transportation. That is the nature of the figurative term "the city grew up around [insert transportation]".
Yes, they are. See the "figurative term" as opposed to "literal term". English must not be your first language.
I just gave a string, you just chose to ignore facts. You must want to work for CNN^W PRAVDA^W CNN. Or perhaps you do
Quite a few, if you yourself are unbiased. Immigration reform, promised for the last 40 years and finally some activity. Tax reform, promised for 30 years and finally some activity. Trade deals which benefit Americans as opposed to harming Americans, ignored by Democrats in all branches for the last 30 years and seeing some positive results. A valid replacement for the Constitutional originalist Antony Scalia, definitely a positive. Attempting to reduce federal power and push issues back to States, also a positive.
There are surely negatives as well, but not what you hear on CNN or read in WAPO or NYT. In fact you won't hear about things like Lumber tariffs and their negative impact, because they have a bogey man to chase. Dumb people who can't discern fact from innuendo seem to buy into it to an extent.
Now that Trump TV has gotten off the ground, and we have our first official state-run media outlet, there is no longer a need for net neutrality, which is so 2015.
http://www.marketwatch.com/sto...
You have a monopoly controlling all media in the US which despises everything except the extreme leftist view, and worry about TrumpTV which has never aired a show? 98% of CNN's coverage is negative, and refusal to air non-leftist positions for nearly a decade, MSNBC at 97% and the same. NYT and WAPO both openly stated last summer that they would no longer have a neutral position and would try to destroy Trump, promoting fabricated news just like CNN to further their leftist ideology. And to be sure we don't limit censorship and bias to print and TV, Google, Facebook, and Twitter have all been censoring opinions from the right and promoting far Leftism as well.
Hell, even Fox which gets accused of supporting Trump has 52% negative coverage and a whole slew of far left wing progressive shows where no right wing opinions are allowed and even centrist opinions are discouraged.
You are worried about some Station that is new and never aired a show while nearly everything you get is propaganda? Good grief!
I simply pointed out that the parent who claimed: "the cities are build around train stations" is wrong.
Which was my post and I have defended it to your "nuh uh, I'm putting my head in the sand" defense a few times. Your latest answer, more "nuh uh, I'm putting my head in the sand.
Nobody claimed that cities would not be there without train stations in Japan, so you are arguing against terminology not used. That aside, in larger countries like Russia and the US cities _DID_ grow up literally because of train stations and would not have existed without them. That was not mentioned because the US does not have successful commuter rail.
Would that make Maryland the Garden of Eden since they are next to Delaware?
Point is:
You are an idiot? Lets see..
first there were cities.
then there came rails and train stations.
So: cities are not designed around railways.
Yes they are. Contrary to your asinine assertion, cities are not stagnant and formed with all buildings and transit systems in place. Cities are in a constant state of change, _primarily_ based on transportation and changes to the transportation _systems_ available.
Since train stations were part of the city and built to be more than just pick up and drop off spots, the cities grew around the train stations. Quite literally, the largest buildings and more expensive property in Osaka and Kobe sit closer to the train station, and as you move further away the buildings get smaller and cheaper.
Yes, but in ancient times there were small buildings and some guy simply build a train station there. So what is your point? The city was there first, then came the train station. It never happens other way around.
And as with above, the city existing does not mean it did not grow and change over time. To make such an assertion is simply absurd. Perhaps you should get a grasp on basic words, like "grow". You see, a child grows up. In order for that to happen, the child must exist. Saying a child can't grow up around pets because the child already existed would be a moronic statement made by a loon worthy of institutionalization. If that last word is too big for you, change it to "special person's home".
Lost on you...
I'm pretty sure Japan had cities before they where "designed around trains" (what ever that is supposed to mean).
Ahh, so you are ignorant. "I'm pretty sure Japan had cities before" No kidding?!?! So did Germany, France, Russia, and even the US, as well as every other country that has trains.
"designed around trains" (what ever that is supposed to mean) Based on history, I'm guessing your rhetorical statement is being an ass instead of actually asking what it means, but I can still try to educate the innocent. If you travel to Japan you will notice that Train stations are A) very large B) sit in the city centers, C) are well maintained (clean), and D) contain much more than trains and access to them. The train stations have dozens of stores, restaurants, and other shops in addition to the ticket booths, help counters, and guards (the latter 2 not very common in the US at all).
I'll compare that to DC's Metro, and CA's BART, VTA, and Caltrain. Train stations sit in the cheapest property next to very little. Usually a bus pickup location, but not much else. Since people use them to commute only, they tend to be filthy and less secure than anywhere else in a city. You are lucky to have functional vending machines in a US train station, and even luckier to find a small shop to buy a sandwich. In fact between Caltrain, VTA, and Bart I know of 2 whole stations between SF and San Jose with 3 whole shops between them. VTA and BART generally don't even have a rest room at their stops, let alone a vending machine. (VTA being much worse than BART)
Since train stations were part of the city and built to be more than just pick up and drop off spots, the cities grew around the train stations. Quite literally, the largest buildings and more expensive property in Osaka and Kobe sit closer to the train station, and as you move further away the buildings get smaller and cheaper.
Without an indicator, no, it is not possible to catch sarcasm on certain subjects. If you have not seen or noticed the constant and chronic anti-America posts, they have become quite prevalent virtually everywhere in media.
Before you say something like "but my post was obviously ludicrous" (which it was knowing it was sarcasm) just remember that genders are infinite and not controlled by biology, UBI and Socialism are "fixes" for the US, and paying money to invisible entities fixes all of our climate woes. (some sarcasm also, just in case)
Wrong! The biggest issue with trains in the US can be discovered with a basic Geography class. See post here. I have no idea how you missed so much US history, but we had enormous use of trains from he 1800s to mid/later 1900s. The advent and improvement of commercial airplanes reduced our dependency on trains greatly.
I stated that there are numerous reasons things work in Japan, or other countries that are heavy train users for that matter, and quite frankly amazed that I have to point them out.
Distance between Tokyo and Kobe, 320 miles. That is a bit more than half of the whole country of Japan. Distance beween Kobe and Osaka, or Osaka and Kyoto is between 20 and 30 miles.
Compare that to say the two largest cities in just California, 404 miles apart. SF and the Middle of the country, 1,800 miles. Distance between coasts at around 3,000.
Now do that same comparison with Germany, or France, or the UK, or Spain, or any other county you wish. As the land mass increases (Russia/India/China) the use of trains becomes more and more local and long distance commuting gets less and less.
A high speed train won't convert people, because the time savings even at 300 MPH like a bullet train means hours (plural) on a train to get between cities that you can fly in an hour. I hope I don't need to state that Trains will have stops (like in Japan, Germany, etc..) so you are not going a direct route at top speed ever. The fastest bullet trains between Tokyo and Osaka will take you on average 6 hours, even though it's only 300 miles. You can fly from Tokyo to Osaka in less than an hour.
Trains are problematic in the US for numerous reasons, so even having a "fast" train won't solve many issues. Japan has a functional train system with cities designed around them. citation but once you need to get away from the main train station the novelty of trains quickly wears off.
Isn't blue background the powershell default?
Like you, I prefer to work white/green on black. Some of the newer utility color schemes (vim) suck with a black background, so you need either turn off the colors or change background to white.
You're dodging that I've used your own reasoning to equate your continued existence as murder.
Perhaps in your own mind, but no you have not. Your assertion that this person doing something and giving that data away for personal gain is the equivalent to a person who works for an NGO and counts as overhead is simply ludicrous. The reductio ad absurdem to claim I am a murderer is based on your former fallacious logic. Fallacy of a Fallacy != logical, it makes you more irrational..
I have repeatedly provided the way to reference my point in debate, and given you two questions to answer. Lets see if you did, or if you are just running in circles as to avoid a basic moral question.
And reading further, you simply ignored the basic questions about TFA and continue on your ludicrousness. If your position was close to rational I'd say "good troll", but as is I can't tell if you are trolling or mentally deranged.
Good luck to you, and I hope you find medication.
No, I'm comparing the non-government organization (ProPublica)'s arguments to yours, and carrying them to completion, as a way to demonstrate your argument in a more-relatable context.
Okay, I'll play along for now.
You claim that this person's actions can provide him a potential monetary benefit somewhere down the line, thus he has taken action for personal gain, regardless of all other factors or circumstance.
What other factors or circumstances? The person did, or did not take action for personal gain. As stated twice previously, if the action was not for personal gain they would have reported in a different fashion, and probably to a different location.
Your "other factors or circumstances" is exactly what I referred to as moral relativism.
Example: If you see a 100 dollar bill on the ground and pick it up and keep it, you either did or did not commit the act. Whether the 100 dollar bill came out of a millionaires pocket, or is the life savings of a homeless addict on the street makes no difference.
I pointed out a similar claim made by someone else about cost overhead, and carried it out to its conclusion (that people's wages are also "overhead" and they should just work for free), and then carried that conclusion even farther into the absurd to demonstrate that your personal actions are the cause of somebody's suffering and, likely, somebody's death, all for your own personal financial gain by securing employment.
What is absurd is trying to establish this persons actions as a moral equivalence to an NGO's overhead.
Simple questions we can arrive at using the Socratic method. I didn't elaborate this at the start, but assume most people can get to them on their own. No moral equivalences or relativity, simple yes or no.
1. Did the person release this information for personal gain?
2. Did the media use the information as a public good to teach people the dangers of phishing and how to avoid being a victim, or or to put out a negative message about the information source?
I have yet to see you actually defend the person who gave the data to CNN or defend the Media for their altruistic use of the data.
Sgt. Keller: "Follow me upstairs, like, now."
Joe: "Right now? W-- Shouldn't I train this guy?"
Sgt. Keller: "I think he can figure out how to sit on his ass and watch TV all day."
Wait, you accuse me of going to ridiculous lengths talking about the same guy and his actions while you have to jump to a NGO which didn't do anything at all similar to this person? Who is going to ridiculous lengths to justify their opinion exactly? What we have here is called a case of projection.
I don't believe you fully understand moral relativism. Moral relativism is changing the rules when you believe it suits your position or beliefs instead of from a position of pure good/evil, true/false, justice/injustice. Scale can be a factor used in moral relativism, but certainly not the only way people manipulate morality to fit their particular belief.
I gave the example of the person who gave the information to CNN being altruistic. Doing so anonymously. I further gave how media could have used the information in a positive way. Not altruistic by any stretch of the imagination, but more beneficial to society. You have not countered my example of those two entities (the only two in the story). You use gross generalizations which include the famous appeal to emotion "people are suffering and dying because they don't have jobs" and an NGO. WTF?
This guy's "personal gain" was some Internet fame.
Not quite. You do realize that TV shows quite often _pay_ for people to appear. There is of course what you mention with internet fame, but I'll add that the person also gained "media" fame for paid appearance even if he didn't get paid this time. Book deals, interviews, etc... That he didn't get information to hack into a bank account or commit direct blackmail does not mean he doesn't gain financially by releasing the information to a media outlet.
If the motivation was truly altruistic as you are attempting to imply, he could have released the information anonymously.
CNN is attempting to draw attention for personal gain, and laying out a narrative to influence thought
On this we agree.
I think we disagree on principle, where I don't subscribe to moral relativism. You may not see this issue as moral relativism if you assume the person released the information because of altruism. I gave the reason why I don't believe it was altruistic.
I used the term promiscuous intentionally. Promiscuity is defined as indiscriminate mingling or association. Sexual relations is often a part of that, but not required. Flirting is often associated, but not required. Petting could be a part of it, but not required. Etc... Fantasizing in the way you describe would be covered as well. If you have a better term I could have used, feel free to let me know.