Online Cheating Site AshleyMadison Hacked • Hacker News Board

Re: Online Cheating Site AshleyMadison Hacked

#251

Post by StavrosK » Mon, Jul 20, 2015, 5:25 PM UTC

richmarr wrote: post #233

StavrosK wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 'Wrong' is subjective so that statement is a truism Morality is subjective, so dismissing the statement as a truism means that we can't talk about morality at all. > For a given act of vigilantism there will be a proportion who condone it and a proportion who don't. Who decides? Same goes for a given law. > What happens if someone commits suicide because of this hack? "I'm not convinced vigilantism is always wrong"…

... dismissing the statement as a truism means that we can't talk about morality at all. I just think we need to be more careful with words, as you point out. Same goes for a given law. Yet with laws there is an opportunity for debate and reform, as well as some degree accountability. You can be reasonably confident that at least a strong minority think any given law is reasonable. For vigilante actions that support…

Yes, I think I agree with you on everything. I'm mostly influenced by the fact that I saw a man hit a stray dog with his car right after I fed it (it was emaciated) even though he was on a mile-long straight stretch and the dog was standing on the street for a while. Not only did he hit the dog and ran while onlookers yelled for him to stop, but he ran a stop sign in his attempt to speed away and caused a truck to veer into the opposite lane to narrowly avoid him.

The police told me they couldn't do anything because a police officer wasn't there to witness any of this, which is reasonable as far as laws go, but I don't think such behaviour should go unpunished, even if it's just people thinking less of the perpetrator.

Re: Online Cheating Site AshleyMadison Hacked

#252

Post by tptacek » Mon, Jul 20, 2015, 5:26 PM UTC

Lawtonfogle wrote: post #248

tptacek wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

False equivalence. Adultery is not a crime. Trafficking in child pornography is. Nobody has a right to private criminality.

So in places where it was a crime, the argument doesn't apply? It seems quite odd to base a moral argument using legal definitions of criminality as those definitions do change. Consider the absurdity of applying such reasons to a place where certain political protests are illegal. Also, the argument presented does not make a distinction between legal and illegal usage.

It doesn't matter whether the distinction was made, because there's no reasonable discussion to be had about privacy that doesn't engage with criminality. An argument about an absolute right to privacy is intrinsically an argument about how society should respond to crime.

In reality, almost nobody who thinks they believe in an absolute right to privacy really believes that.

Re: Online Cheating Site AshleyMadison Hacked

#253

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jul 20, 2015, 5:26 PM UTC

jdalgetty wrote: post #141

It get's me that so many people are basically saying it serves these people right for using the service. I don't think that it matters that this is a "cheating" site, your privacy should still be guarded and it's not fair that all these people are being exposed. Secondly, I'd wager that many of the users sign up to use Ashley Madison for the thrill of the idea and probably aren't actually cheaters themselves or hooki…

[deleted]

Re: Online Cheating Site AshleyMadison Hacked

#254

Post by caskance » Mon, Jul 20, 2015, 5:28 PM UTC

sp332 wrote: post #181

https://twitter.com/PreachySnow/ > Do you know what some men do when they find out their wives have been cheating? They beat them. They kill them. They don't just leave. Also, users of Ashley Madison could lose their jobs. You know, their support system that allows them to take care of their kids. Millions of people being revealed for committing adultery isn't anything to rejoice about. This is not the way to handle…

And when that happens, it is the man's fault for reacting violently, or if you're particularly callous, the wife's fault for cheating. The person who reveals the truth is quite a ways down the blame list.

Re: Online Cheating Site AshleyMadison Hacked

#255

Post by vectorjohn » Mon, Jul 20, 2015, 5:28 PM UTC

aetherson wrote: post #188

unchocked wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how enabling affairs contributes to the net misery of the world. A civilized society ought to move away from your sort of moralizing judgement about relations between consenting adults, or those who facilitate them. Adults are free to fuck: they are happier for doing it.

Whatever you think that a civilized society "ought" to move away from, then fact of the matter is that the rest of society doesn't agree with you. And, in fact, married people are (typically) not "free to fuck," and when they do fuck extramaritally, they are (typically) not happier for doing it, and their spouses are (even more typically) not happier for them doing it. This is a descriptive statement, not a prescript…

It's an evidenceless statement, full of self righteous judgmental undertones. "civilized society" is not disney cartoons and soap operas. There is no reason to add anything to the statement that adults are free to handle their relationships as they choose. No need to add a "but I think they're wrong to do it".

Re: Online Cheating Site AshleyMadison Hacked

#256

Post by dublinben » Mon, Jul 20, 2015, 5:29 PM UTC

Lawtonfogle wrote: post #231

anotherangrydev wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Typical. Free speech! (Until I hear something I don't like!) Equal rights! (Except for people that are not like me!)

>Free speech! (Until I hear something I don't like!) What limitations do you think should be put on the exchange of information (words, thoughts, concepts, pictures, videos, executable, etc.). For almost everyone I've ever asked, the answer was never 'none'. They may start there, but soon after I started listing more concrete examples I find one that makes them take back that 'none'.

You didn't ask me, but the correct answer is 'none.'

Re: Online Cheating Site AshleyMadison Hacked

#257

Post by fnordfnordfnord » Mon, Jul 20, 2015, 5:31 PM UTC

ArtDev wrote: post #240

harlanlewis wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Judging other people's relationships is a losing game, no matter how objectively you label qualifiers. Few things are more opaque than the unspoken space between other minds, with their unique mix of shared + independent history, context, hopes, doubts, violence, love. But hey, good luck drawing lines where you choose.

The sites sole purpose is inherently harmful. The ads speak for themselves: https://www.google.com/search?q=ashlymadison+ads

Inherently harmful to whom?

PS Those ads are awful.

Re: Online Cheating Site AshleyMadison Hacked

#258

Post by vectorjohn » Mon, Jul 20, 2015, 5:34 PM UTC

ArtDev wrote: post #240

harlanlewis wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Judging other people's relationships is a losing game, no matter how objectively you label qualifiers. Few things are more opaque than the unspoken space between other minds, with their unique mix of shared + independent history, context, hopes, doubts, violence, love. But hey, good luck drawing lines where you choose.

The sites sole purpose is inherently harmful. The ads speak for themselves: https://www.google.com/search?q=ashlymadison+ads

This is not a factual statement. It's your opinion. It isn't up to you to decide this for other people.

Re: Online Cheating Site AshleyMadison Hacked

#259

Post by eropple » Mon, Jul 20, 2015, 5:44 PM UTC

dublinben wrote: post #256

Lawtonfogle wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Free speech! (Until I hear something I don't like!) What limitations do you think should be put on the exchange of information (words, thoughts, concepts, pictures, videos, executable, etc.). For almost everyone I've ever asked, the answer was never 'none'. They may start there, but soon after I started listing more concrete examples I find one that makes them take back that 'none'.

You didn't ask me, but the correct answer is 'none.'

Cool, so it's alright for me to air your dirtiest of laundry? I'll remember that.

Re: Online Cheating Site AshleyMadison Hacked

#260

Post by Retra » Mon, Jul 20, 2015, 5:45 PM UTC

dublinben wrote: post #256

Lawtonfogle wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Free speech! (Until I hear something I don't like!) What limitations do you think should be put on the exchange of information (words, thoughts, concepts, pictures, videos, executable, etc.). For almost everyone I've ever asked, the answer was never 'none'. They may start there, but soon after I started listing more concrete examples I find one that makes them take back that 'none'.

You didn't ask me, but the correct answer is 'none.'

You realize that you are advocating for single-point-of-failure, right? That if I learn anything at all about you, that I should be free to share it with whomever I like in any way I want, and for any reason?

Do you honestly believe that you are so good at guarding information that you have nothing to fear from it's free propagation? And that this is not only true for you, but for everyone?