![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Online Cheating Site Hacked
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
I don't think you understand. If the official partner does not know that the other official partner is having an illicit, yet consensual relationship with someone else, then that original 'official' partner is not capable of implied or explicit consent or non-consent because they are unaware the other partner is having another consensual relationship. That seems pretty obvious, but for some reason you and others want to inject another variable into the argument that does not belong.
Non-consent requires foreknowledge. If you know your partner is carrying on another consensual relationship, you can either consent or not. If you don't know, then you are incapable of consent or non-consent. Extramarital relationships require consent between two consenting adults. This doesn't require consent between those other partners. In either case, it is no ones business but the people involved. People seem to want to get into other peoples business a lot lately and I'm not sure why. This hack seeks to either glean CC info or be used as blackmail. Still, no ones business but those that are exposed.
And if a condom is used then what? Oh no, another one of your theories shattered again.
It's not a theory, it's a definition that isn't subject to your (incorrect) opinion.
You simply don't understand the meaning of consent as evidenced by this post:
If someone does not give consent, either because they withhold it or don't know to give it, that does not make something "consensual."
Consent means to give permission. If you don't have consent from someone while you're doing something then you are engaging in non-consensual behavior.
The fact that you want to argue that married partners don't need the consent of their spouses to engage in non-consesensual sexual activity outside of the marriage is irrelevant to the fact that the behavior is still defined as non-consensual.
You are mixing up two different concepts: whether something is or is no consensual is a separate issue from whether consent is necessary for the behavior to be moral or ethical.
Maybe according to the Baptists or a bunch of Jesusfreaks. But what website or dictionary or paper says that these behaviors are non-consensual? You keep using defined as if it's set in stone in research papers or something when it's really subjected to one's interpretation. When you use "consensual", you're using it wrong as plenty of us points out that it is incorrect. Affairs (those who wants to hide either homosexuality, heterosexuality, promiscuousness for example) or extramarital affairs are on a wide spectrum which depends on what kind of moral compass you have. You have your own set of moral compass which you seem keen on projecting on the rest of people here but it certainly doesn't jibe with mine. I have no opinion on whether who is fucking who. I certainly am not going to go out of my way to point it out to the spouses because that's their problem. If it starts to affect national security implications because I do work in that kind of industry, then maybe it's an issue to bring up with the employers which they then will investigate while keeping discretion. Again it's not your problem to project your moral compass on others. If you want to do that, go join the Westboro Baptists.
This is hilariously stupid. http://nymag.com/thecut/2015/07/what-open-marriage-taught-one-man-about-feminism.html
Have you even read this? Is the wife's husband going to go fuck Paulo? Unlikely since he's a gamma-male heterosexual cuckold pussy.
Droc
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2007
- Messages
- 3,387
where is this list? Id like to locate me some local ladies who put out.
All of the listed threat links were DMCA'ed
Here's the pastebin threat:
http://pastebin.com/Kty5xBiv
TwistedAegis
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2009
- Messages
- 8,958
Are you kidding me? So if I agree with you, in forming a relationship, that we are monogamous, then you go out and sleep with someone else, I'm not capable of consent or non-consent? You people are insane. By this same logic, a passed out woman cannot be capable of non-consent to sex since she is unaware she is having sex.
Last post; this isn't even a moral argument just one of simple logic. Remove sex from it. If I sign a contract with a business partner that I will not start a another similar business on the side, and then I do so anyway without that partner knowing, that is still non-consensual and a breach of contract.
I'm assuming people are older than 12, being on [H] for over a decade, but the logic of, "If someone doesn't know about it, then by definition they don't mind and can't disagree!" should have been weaned off of in grade school.
Darunion
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2010
- Messages
- 4,869
So because of this hack they are offering free account deletions. But don't the 'hackers'already have that information so it is a pretty moot point? Also, apparently the website charged $20 to delete your account. Wow, and they actually had users?
Link to article:
http://www.latimes.com/business/tec...ley-madison-free-deletion-20150721-story.html
Link to article:
http://www.latimes.com/business/tec...ley-madison-free-deletion-20150721-story.html
TwistedAegis
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2009
- Messages
- 8,958
We now offer free barn door locking services; ignore the empty barn and all the horses in the pasture.
And one of the hackers' claims was that their $20 service was a scam and they didn't actually delete everything, including the name on the credit card used to pay the $20. That being said, there are likely legal record retention requirements for payment data, but they shouldn't have advertised it as such then.
And one of the hackers' claims was that their $20 service was a scam and they didn't actually delete everything, including the name on the credit card used to pay the $20. That being said, there are likely legal record retention requirements for payment data, but they shouldn't have advertised it as such then.
D
Deleted member 93354
Guest
What about those who got an account just out of pure curiosity or for gits and shiggles?
Or someone who got an account to check to see if their spouse was cheating on them?
Is that justice for them?
if you and I enter into a monogomous relationship and I seek to sleep with someone else without you knowing, then you neither consented or non-consented. You are ignorant of my behavior and therefore have input of any sort of consent because you are simply unaware. Yes or no? Also, with respect to a having sex with a woman who is passed out not being able to give consent, this is called rape because of taking a direct action of sex without her knowledge upon her person. In this regard, she is incapable of giving or not giving consent, but because someone has sexual contact with her and she cannot say yes or no, this is still considered rape on that context alone.
If a contract is signed stating that a business wouldn't be started on the side, then consent to that contract was explicitly given at the time of signing the contract by both parties. They both are aware of the conditions of that consent. No other forms of consent are required. If a side business is created without the knowledge of a partner, then again, consent or non-consent is required, the breach of contract alone and the contract itself explicitly outline consent or non-consent.
If someone is ignorant of an action or behavior, that doesn't imply that the person doesn't mind if the behavior continues. I'm simply arguing that if someone is ignorant of something, they cannot give consent or non-concept, implicitly or explicitly unless an agreement before hand is understood. That's all I've ever said. Within the eyes of the law, ignorance is no excuse, but in this regard, we aren't talking about the law from a legal point of view. We are talking arrangements between two consenting adults.
Wow....wow. Sir, please just stop. You are this close to being an utter imbecile.
D
Deleted member 93354
Guest
The self righteous should read this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Do-Gooders-Liberals-Hurt-Those-Claim/dp/1593357745
Human psychology and sociological theory states you can't force people to do the right thing unless it is in their interest.
http://www.amazon.com/Do-Gooders-Liberals-Hurt-Those-Claim/dp/1593357745
Human psychology and sociological theory states you can't force people to do the right thing unless it is in their interest.
I'll choose Immanuel Kant over Mona Charen
--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative
--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_philosophy_of_Immanuel_Kant
kbrickley
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 13, 2012
- Messages
- 7,514
I don't think any of the folks are arguing that adultery or affairs should be illegal or that we should force people to behave ... most of the arguments have been along the lines of "they were doing something they shouldn't have and now they may pay the price for that" (Karmic Justice
) and a few have been arguing that there was nothing wrong with what they were doing (they're wrong but they are entitled to that opinion )... just because people choose to do "bad" things doesn't mean that people who are opposed to those bad things must sit idle or be forced to change their definition of right and wrong ... have an affair or don't have an affair (makes no difference to me unless it is my wife or kids doing it), but if you get caught doing it don't expect sympathy or solace from me Also, the book you referenced was on Liberal policies ... if anything, the folks opposed to affairs are of the more conservative thinking (not liberals who would condone such family destroying behaviors) ... I would agree that it is liberal thinking on the nuclear family that has destroyed many of the family values that the USA used to be famous for
BTW, Charen is a newspaper columnist. I have my doctorate in Criminology, Law, and Society, my Master's in Social Ecology, and my Bachelor's of Science in Sociology, and I minored in philosophy (I was also lucky enough to earn my graduate degrees at a time my university hosted the number one linguistics program in the world so I was able to sit in on various courses taught by Derrida himself).
I'd like you to cite for me which psychological and sociological theories you think state that one "can't force people to do the right thing unless is in in their self interest."
I can, in contradiction to your claim, cite an entire branch of game theory that conditions one's behavior on what they think others think and do, along with a few branches of philosophical theory (Kant's Categorical Imperative being but one) that point out how human behavior is conditioned by those around us and not purely on self interest (or more complexly stated, that it is within our self interest to consider the interests of those around us).
Darunion
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2010
- Messages
- 4,869
Your epeen is a good size, although it gets stunted slightly when pulled out to aid in a forum argument.
I don't think any of the folks are arguing that adultery or affairs should be illegal or that we should force people to behave ... most of the arguments have been along the lines of "they were doing something they shouldn't have and now they may pay the price for that" (Karmic Justice
Also, the book you referenced was on Liberal policies ... if anything, the folks opposed to affairs are of the more conservative thinking (not liberals who would condone such family destroying behaviors) ... I would agree that it is liberal thinking on the nuclear family that has destroyed many of the family values that the USA used to be famous for
I'd argue that adultery should be made illegal if kids are in the picture. Conducting an affair will not only hurt the spouse but the kids as well. When affairs are discovered, in the messy aftermath the damage to the kids has been proven to be a detriment to their future well being and development. One could argue that conducting an affair could be construed as an indirect child abuse.
When people start tossing grenades around the discussion it helps to have the appropriate credentials.
Adultery is illegal in about half the states but rarely enforced.
To the extent that it might be prosecuted or used against someone in a courtroom it's most often custody battles and less often property disputes.
Darunion
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2010
- Messages
- 4,869
While I cannot argue the effects of the affair, it can become a slippery slope once you add laws to cover every immoral/unethical decision. To prosecute for adultry you would need evidence, so now people would need to have a higher degree of monitoring to ensure this doesn't happen and also to have hard evidence in a courtroom. And lets say I cheated 5 years ago, regret it more than anything. Should that go on a record so as to damn me from any future relationships. Should we have public records of every mistake or bad choice we make? I know this is blowing what you said out to the maximum, but it is a natural trend of topics such as these.
Darunion
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2010
- Messages
- 4,869
Fair point. Though without also providing references to your credentials, it has no more bearing on an argument than any other 'grenade' thrown in the discussion.
Ok, how about this:
If there is sufficient solid evidence of extramarital affair in a relationship during pregnancy or after child(ren) are born then this act will also be classified as indirect child abuse and prosecuted as such.
a) Both parties have been married for x time with valid marriage license.
b) There is direct or non direct evidence ( texts, calls, emails ) that a physical affair took place.
etc etc etc
I've posted a picture of my doctorate degree in past discussions and the regular participants in these discussions are aware of my degrees' existence.
You don't have to try and reinvent the wheel. These laws already exist.
I could tell you were a genius by the way you talk down to everyone, no more proof needed.
The issue is less about being a genius and more about having the appropriate credentials to make claims about psychological and sociological theories about human behavior.
I was positioning my credentials against Charen's. Kant's 300 year old categorical imperative as opposed to Charen's "liberals are doo doo heads."
If you think that properly defining "consent" is "talk[ing] down to everyone" then that is a problem with your ability to handle information. You should direct those kinds of criticisms back at yourself and others who went out of your way to try and personally attack me by writing that I don't understand logic, reason, or the English language. Those are examples of talking down to someone yet you were perfectly fine doing them. When I post my credentials and you get butthurt over that, it's a strange response indeed.
You want real talking down I could give you that and I'll take my infraction for it too.
What the hell is a doctorate doing on a forum at all times of the day? Must be a nice job market for your never-ending skill set that you are dieing to share with everyone. As to others talking down and back to you, there must be a reason for that other than you are just a likable guy, spit in someones face and you want them to kiss your ass in return that logic can only be taught to people with high credentials that they are readily waiting to share for acknowledgment of their accomplishments. Well here is your pat on the back if you know what I am saying, take it to the bank.
I'm looking for free sign up!
D
Deleted member 93354
Guest
I don't think any of the folks are arguing that adultery or affairs should be illegal or that we should force people to behave ... most of the arguments have been along the lines of "they were doing something they shouldn't have and now they may pay the price for that" (Karmic Justice
Also, the book you referenced was on Liberal policies ... if anything, the folks opposed to affairs are of the more conservative thinking (not liberals who would condone such family destroying behaviors) ... I would agree that it is liberal thinking on the nuclear family that has destroyed many of the family values that the USA used to be famous for
I agree that anybody who goes actively looking to cheat has some serious morality issues or addictions.
What I disagree with is a hacker group doing it to be morally self righteous. They have solved nothing and only created pain in the process. (And likely set a few innocent people too up in the cross hairs) They need to mind their own damn business.
Now as to your review of the book, it is well shown that Democratic policies try to regulate behavior more then Republican ones. But republicans will shed a more disapproving eye.
Case in point: A privately owned bakery in Oregon was fined a couple hundred thousand dollars because they refused to provide a cake to a lesbian wedding because it went against their religious convictions. That is forced morality in a very liberal state.
D
Deleted member 93354
Guest
The book is full of political theory as well as case studies. It's not a doo doo head book.
Quite simple legislated morality does not work.