None to speak of.

I’m pretty sure I have some from almost random pointd throughout at least a good part of my life squirreled away somewhere, but I couldn’t tell you where.

My favorite ex-girlfriend has a bajillion pictures of me, since she takes photos constantly and always wants people in them, so I was the most common subject for a time. I never even really looked at them then though, and now they’re on the other side of the country (though if they were here, I still probably wouldn’t look at them).

It’s not so much that I dislike them or anything - I’ve just never really seen the point, and never even really think about it.

Affirmation.

They’re generally desperately insecure and unable to find anything of any value in themselves, so since they can’t build themselves up, they try to tear other people down.

And it doesn’t work very well, so if they come to depend on it, they have to do it virtually nonstop.

My post was a very condensed version of a very complex and detailed set of views. If you pull a phrase out of context and try to slap a trite and superficial interpretation on it, you’re almost certainly going to get it wrong.

Some more details to aid in parsing the whole thing:

I don’t think rights exist in any objective sense at all. They’re entirely constructs. That means, among other things, that they can and should be shaped in such a way as to best serve their intended purpose.

I didn’t say that privacy is a foundational right - I said that it’s a foundational violated right. As I then went on to try to explain, my view is that the common conception of rights is backwards.

What I mean by that is that, for instance, nobody should have to claim a right to not have their privacy breached, since not having their privacy breached is the default. Their privacy can only be breached if someone else takes it upon themselves to act in a specific way in order to breach their privacy, so (and rather obviously IMO), if we’re to grant credence to the constructs we call “rights’,” then the way it should work is that that somebody else has to prove that they have a right to breach your privacy.

But the way that it actually works is that others breach your privacy as a matter of course and generally without controversy.

My view is that the fact that they can and do do that - that when the matter does come up, it’s just treated as a given that they’re entirely free to do that unless and until you can somehow prove that you have a right to stop them - serves to frame the whole issue in a way that grants people free reign to violate others as they please unless and until those others can successfully claim a right to stop them. In that sense, it’s “foundational.”

Or to put it another way - nobody starts by blithely presuming a right to kill other people. They start by blithely presuming a right to, for instance, violate other people’s privacy, then expand from there.

This doesn’t even semm like a coherent question.

“Naturally forbidden” is, if I’m parsing it correctly, a nonsense phrase.

I don’t believe that privacy is necessarily important per se. Rather, I believe that it’s a foundational violated right.

Rights are (not coincidentally IMO) almost always conceived and expressed backwards. That puts the onus on those who would defend a claimed right. I think the onus rather obviously should fall on those who would violate a right - they are the ones who are acting in a specific way, so they are the ones who need to justify their actions.

If an individual lives in complete isolation, they have a complete and total and unchallenged “right” to privacy - it’s literally impossible for anyone else to breach their privacy. It’s only with the addition of other people that the matter becomes relevant, and only with an attempt by another to breach their privacy that it becomes a point of contention.

So again, and really rather obviously, that other has to be able to justify their breach of privacy, since it’s specifically them and their actions that have made the issue relevant.

And at that point, it’s really a very simple question - who has a greater right to control over the details of an individual’s life - that individual or some third party?

So it’s not so much that I believe that people have a right to privacy as that I believe that people cannot possibly have a right to violate someone else’s privacy.

If he has his way about it (and so far nobody has stopped him on much of anything), nothing that he does is going to affect the 2026 elections because the Republicans are going to steal them.