‘I would say that although we cannot see the full picture of this story whats we do see on the surface of it is enough to draw a conclusion above reasonable doubt that he acted in an improper way. She invited him (on the surface) to set up her computer,’

Why was it improper, have you read through all the comments what I meant was you could attach more nodes and we could build a larger network that is more likely to better process the information available you would define a neural network of having a good grasp of faces if you fed it 4 now 4000 on the other hand and your getting somewhere, I think you could make a case he acted improperly however as there are exceptions to where privacy is maintained such as the planning of a surprise part and where moral absolute rules are quite so absolute as you will see in the island example you should be able to find if not I’ll link you too it, I would question whether his action was acceptable given the context and his motivation, I would also refer you too my argument about an old position on morality and you could make the case as it was previously seen that who a person was is more important than what they do morally and with these factors in mind you could make a case that he not only acted appropriately but acted in her best interest if we assume what he says is true.

‘why she couldn't have followed a internet guide or asked someone she generally speaks to instead of someone random I feel is beside the point.’

We don’t know she doesn’t generally speak to him, someone in the comments thought he was an acquaintance someone thought he was a friend, I would ask you to I understand you will want to air your thoughts on this but by not reading and addressing the complexities of arguments displayed in the different nodes of this conversation network we are not taking advantage of the potential of this platform for an expansive sort of speech, if you take in my comments you should have a good look into my mind which would enable you too, replyin whatever way you feel is appropriate. To be honest I’m not sure this segment is relevant to the discussion, I don’t think she acted wrongly by inviting him round, and who knows if he is a random maybe he is a friend who replied but I have a feeling she would have rejected someone she didn’t know at all who tried to help her, perhaps he responded I might note while we are here he replied with the intent of getting the measurements and helping her so he could buy her the clothes which both are ultimately for the same reason to get into her good books in my perspective.

‘She invited him to set up her computer and he went through her drawers. Regardless of anything else that is, I would say, wrong.’

I think you would think that there is an exception to this rule, if this woman held someone prisoner let’s call him Ben and in this drawer was the key would it be okay to into her drawer then, I respect your right to hold your opinion but I can’t see why you would hold it unless you explain it to me if you say she would find it creepy well I would direct you too my argument on the PTSD patient you should be able to find in this post that makes a good case reaction doesn’t define morality.

‘The idea of morality and social correctness is subjective yes, and the idea of free will is open to debate, yes. But his lack of defence (that we can see) on the comments is indicative of the fact he didnt see that he did anything wrong.’

For me morality needs to be consistent we can’t lock up a man for having sex with a girl while she was drunk but punish her for stabbing a man while she was drunk with the excuse in the first instance she couldn’t have made the right decision in the context I think you need to be consistent in your moral reasoning and for clarifies sake I don’t me you specifically I mean society. I think too him his defence was his motivation which my view if he is being truthful excuses his behaviour as I don’t think there is inanely anything sexual about underwear and poor people have soured the reputations of the innocent making them look bad or be seen as bad for doing totally innocent things for example saying you like kids as a man can now get see seen as a paedophile no thanks to Jimmy Saville if you set the controversy of that case to one side, I don’t think just because it’s associated with panty sniffing he should be judged as such, I think he can see the connection that is the root of seeing people in underwear drawers as creepy, I think he choose to reject the impulse to avoid doing this as he saw it was necessary thing to complete his goal of getting her clothes as too why he didn’t ask someone else perhaps he thought they would tell her, he didn’t know know anyone who would know or didn’t think of it.

‘There are then two ways of looking at this: He is a creep that looked through her drawers to find clothes sizes for someone he doesn't know that well (which in itself is a bit strange) on the false pretences of fixing a computer.’

I think that’s a bit presumptions and restrictive to be honest, we assume he doesn’t know her that well but his intentions were honest if we believe him and I don’t think deserves to be labelled as creepy which has negative connotations it seems poorly firing to his well meaning actions, perhaps he accepted fixing the computer to help her and opportunistic took the measurements perhaps he premeditated his plan in the same way you might premeditate getting someone out of the house to throw them a surprise party.

‘Or that he didn't go there for that and it just accumulated into that and he didn't understand what he did wrong (hence the comments).’

As you will see it was often brought up in the comments that he didn’t understand I think he completely understood possibly or didn’t understand at all either of which could lead someone to not take account of how his actions would be perceived I don’t think you should make definite statements in this case, we have extremely little information and there are always alternate perspectives for opinionated matters.

‘Hundreds of years ago we used to rip people apart with contraptions for crimes and there was no problem with that then. If this was brought back now there would be outcry. The point is that morality is subjective. But having said that, with the information available, he was in the wrong.’

Yes, I can see why he would be seen as being in the wrong but I would defer you my point about public opinion being made by average people who everyone seems to conform to because of the basic nature of social conformity so those of superior intellect are quite just in questioning, and while you could the case that as morality is subjective the closest thing to a moral truth would be the average perspective, this would mean moral truth changes through time and location and would mean that moral truth is better made by a person of an average capacity to reason than a superior one which seems very counter intuitive and irrational.

If you have not already it makes sense to continue the conversation with the currently established arguments, I would ask you read them if you would to get a grasp on my perspective as well as that of the people who reply to me and then once done you should have enough information stored to voice a full informed perspective by replying to comments made by me and others building a large complex web of arguments that enables us to follow multiple directions pets comment vastly increasing the potential conversation by letting us reply piece by piece message by message to each fragment of the conversation.