The Ashley Madison Database Was Leaked

Post by the_af » Wed, Aug 19, 2015, 3:52 PM UTC

Lawtonfogle wrote: post #365

the_af wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Infidelity is certainly harmful to someone (emotional harm is a real thing, not to be discounted) but so is exposing people's private lives and peccadilloes. Infidelity is something that should be resolved in private by the parties involved. Whatever you do, someone will find it offensive or harmful to them, for some definition of "harmful" -- even the way you dress, or the music you listen to, or the books you read,…

Considering infidelity can lead to non-consensualy exposing people to STDs and possibly lead to rape (depending upon how you define consent).

Post by JoeAltmaier » Wed, Aug 19, 2015, 3:53 PM UTC

robgibbons wrote: post #366

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the hack was wrong in the remaining 29 states? Sounds like moral relativism right there. In the US, justice must be pursued by legal means, else there's no case. These hackers just removed any chance of prosecution in the 21 states, because of tainted discovery.

I never argued that it was any less wrong in those states. My point in including that line was to demonstrate that I am not the only one who believes that cheating is a moral offense against your partner, worthy of at least some repercussion. In the eyes of 21 states, it is literally a crime. So my moralisms remain absolute, regardless of the other states. The fact remains that if these hackers had not lifted these d…

Post by vasilipupkin » Wed, Aug 19, 2015, 3:54 PM UTC

thesagan wrote: post #378

vasilipupkin wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

human race used to agree on a lot of things we find incorrect today, so that's a pretty weak argument. But that aside, does it ? Do most people agree that the website shouldn't exist ? Anal sex was illegal in some states up until recently, that doesn't mean it's a good idea for it to be illegal The website doesn't force you to cheat on your partner, you could for example, let your partner know you are on it. Some peo…

For me, at least, there is something that repulses me about the idea of a service that encourages violation of deep partner trust. It seems the opposite of "open" to me. On the other hand, I can also understand the argument for choice and privacy. But, without going deeper here, this type and method of choice and privacy stinks to my nose (if you understand my sense). I mean, seems like this site exists in a way wher…

Post by joaq » Wed, Aug 19, 2015, 3:57 PM UTC

littletimmy wrote: post #382

Those who are moralizing about client info being leaked, would you be as aghast about information about child rapists being leaked? The principle is the same. In both cases there is an aggrieved party (spouse vs child). Both cases need to be put to a stop. It worries me that someone's private information was leaked. On principle I am against this. But there's some justice to it, so I also like it a little.

Post by the_af » Wed, Aug 19, 2015, 3:58 PM UTC

joaq wrote: post #384

the_af wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you have the right approach, but infidelity is not "strongly immoral" in the sense that it entitles you to publicly humiliate people you aren't in any way related to. It's a private matter between two (or actually, more) people. Your spouse has the right to tell you what you did is "strongly immoral", but Joe Public doesn't. I have zero respect for someone from the public who thinks their moral outrage entitl…

"It's a private matter between two (or actually, more) people." Well, given that they're keeping their partner in the dark in the first place I don't see anything wrong with exposing the cheating scum.