Quote Originally Posted by The Stranger View Post

the one with the secret is relatively easy, though still a complicated issue, compared to the slippery slope it puts you on by accepting that the group is allowed to intervene at the cost of an individual for the benefit of the group. will you draw the line at murder? but why would you stop there?
I'm not that general with my principles. The group is allowed to intervene at the cost of an individual for the benefit of the group if the survival of the group as whole including the individual intervened with is threatened. That is the difference. If one man is holding everyone hostage, whether through malicious intent or through ignorance, it is not acceptable to hold onto principles just to feel good as we all die. If the situation can be fixed without violence than that is obviously the better route to go, but it is not a slippery slide when you have a clear line drawn in the sand of not until our lives are threatened can we intervene. Not for an inconvenience, but for real serious stuff.

for me this is a different point. privacy ends where the law begins. but it is an issue between you and those who uphold the law. and when no third party is involved in some way, being it as victim or as culprit, there is no need for anyone to meddle in those affairs, and neither do they have the right to do so.
I agree that no one has a need to meddle, but that is different than a right to know yes? Knowing does not necessarily mean allowing action by third parties.

i entirely agree with you. but there is a big difference between the two case, which ive already stated before, not because rape is more severe but because rape involves more than the two parties of individual and the law, it involves a third party and thus its no longer a private matter. but your last point is also true and thats why its such a delicate matter, and even in cases of rape where more than the two parties of individual and law are involved i would vouch to keep it between the involved matters, atleast untill someone is proven to be guilty. but i understand the need for people to know what happened, if only to sooth them, when someone is murdered in their neighbourhood.
Yes, it is very difficult to discern between what should and shouldn't be public. In fact, in the conclusion we have agreed upon, I don't think it can be denied that having such an exception for the rape accusation case is solely because of the cultural reaction we as a society have to those that are even merely accused as rapists. So therefore we must admit that there might not even be a line that can be drawn since it might as well shift every time our cultural reactions and expectations change. So how can we justify not allowing paparazzi to follow celebrities or not allowing third parties to find out about your traffic ticket on such shaky grounds? It is no longer a right's issue in the sense of "I have this right and always will." Now it is conditional based on culture, which might as well not make it a "right" at all, at least in the natural sense.