Online Cheating Site Hacked

[mope54]

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.

Oh yeah, there's a reason for you guys personally attacking me. I posted something you didn't agree with and ran out of reasonable arguments against so you stared to fling shit at the walls. You didn't come up with anything particularly new in that endeavor

 

[mope54]

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.

The reason I posted my credentials and asked for the specific theories is because I'd like to evaluate them. If you've read the book then you should be able to list, if not explain, at least one or two of them for me/us.

I posted one theory of ethics and you completely ignored it. I even posted Kant's political ideology so you could evaluate that and get it out of your head that understanding ethics is not a liberal vs. conservative position.

 

[filip]

Oh yeah, there's a reason for you guys personally attacking me. I posted something you didn't agree with and ran out of reasonable arguments against so you stared to fling shit at the walls. You didn't come up with anything particularly new in that endeavor

Good points. Fraudsters always get all high and mighty when they get called out on their bullshit. Witness the last two posts by filip and felt...

That is your reasonable argument: bashing others and their opinions while furthering your agenda. Hell I should quote all of your BS so you can read it and then explain how it is an appropriate and reasonable argument. It is sickening how high and mighty you have placed yourself while trampling others ideas.

 

[kbrickley]

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.

I am not a supporter of most of the liberal policies (I support the concept of Gay Marriage but the only people who should be forced to participate are the government officials who grant licenses ... in my opinion) ... but make no mistake, conservatives like to legislate morality too ... they are more likely to pass a law against gay marriage or abortion ... they are also more likely to promote concepts like teaching creationism in the schools (or Intelligent Design) and promote School Prayers ... if you view minor drugs, like Marijuana, as a morality issue they are more likely to support drug penalties

I would agree that society should in general sort out its own issues locally without federal or state interference ... The Scarlet Letter approach does work for society to maintain its own house and we don't need to turn every minor offense into a legal issues

That said, I do agree with others that where adultery or an affair can be proven with a majority of the evidence (and where children are present) then there should be penalties (either by giving a more severe divorce settlement or by the removal of the children from the irresponsible household and putting them into a responsible one)

 

[mope54]

That is your reasonable argument: bashing others and their opinions while furthering your agenda. Hell I should quote all of your BS so you can read it and then explain how it is an appropriate and reasonable argument. It is sickening how high and mighty you have placed yourself while trampling others ideas.

You should quote all of my "bashing" so I can evaluate it and see how it qualifies as personal attacks on you. If I made any personal attacks I'll apologize. If, however, you're simply agitated because I had the nerve to correct wrong assertions then that's something you should either apologize for or shit down and shut up and learn something.

 

[mope54]

Here are my first two posts in this thread; I welcome you to deconstruct my arguments and explain how the logic is faulty.
Claim #1

Wealthy people don't need to go to sites like Ashley Madison for their sexual fixations. It's too public and if they do, still, it's no one elses business.

Rebuttal #1

This site wasn't a porn site, it was for arranging affairs. That's not consensual behavior and it *is* other people's business. Not [H] forum's News section and members, in general, but it's certainly not *no one's* business.

Claim #2

Not consensual behavior? A: I want to fuck her B: I want to fuck him. That's consensual behavior. Again he's correct, it's no one's business what others are doing. I certainly don't give a shit if A is fucking B all while he or she is fucking C at the same time giving the impression that they're serious. When it comes to the Top Secret classifications, it might be a issue say you're getting fucked by a Russian agent and extorted for National Security secrets.

Rebuttal #2

An affair is non-consensual by definition. You don't care whether someone is cheating on his or her spouse, and I pointed out it's none of *your* business already. But that's a different thing from it being none of anyone's business.

The spouse certainly has a right to know, as do any courts where such behavior is illegal, and you will probably change your tune when your sex partner brings you home some HPV.

 

[Shalafi]

They played with fire and got burnt.

No real surprise.

 

[filip]

You should quote all of my "bashing" so I can evaluate it and see how it qualifies as personal attacks on you. If I made any personal attacks I'll apologize. If, however, you're simply agitated because I had the nerve to correct wrong assertions then that's something you should either apologize for or shit down and shut up and learn something.

Here is what you were quoting:

But that people are scumbags is not exactly new. What really separates the scum from joe bargain hunter is the people actually getting into store managers faces and arguing like something is owed them. That is epic lack of dignity.

The people that were bragging how they got their wife/girlfriend to join in and "I had her go and she made out with two cards LOL" is also just.. trashy, since they probably didn't realize it was a scam they were carrying out. On SD there was some brain surgeon that casually mentioned how he had his teenage kids helping out - they'd drive up, park and take turns going in, and he'd flip the cards on ebay.

/old lady waving broom

And the comment that I posted, which you were referring to, was me claiming the odds of employees getting fired over this is slim.

So you, with your quote, placed me and that other guy in this group " But that people are scumbags is not exactly new. What really separates the scum from joe bargain hunter is the people actually getting into store managers faces and arguing like something is owed them. That is epic lack of dignity."

I am learning new things every day, this random guy is explaining to me how I was arguing with store managers, and buying every last card to resell on ebay (hell he was there filing me do all of this /s). How I have an "epic lack of dignity" for doing theses things (which I did not do if you are not detecting the sarcasm) and on top of that how I am a fraudster going off the rails by saying that most likely no one was fired over this.

And you see nothing wrong with that, just spitting on someone, nothing wrong here at all average day for a doctorate.

 

[Deleted member 93354]

The reason I posted my credentials and asked for the specific theories is because I'd like to evaluate them. If you've read the book then you should be able to list, if not explain, at least one or two of them for me/us.

I posted one theory of ethics and you completely ignored it. I even posted Kant's political ideology so you could evaluate that and get it out of your head that understanding ethics is not a liberal vs. conservative position.

The book is at my house. But I'll pull it off the shelf. But here's one for you to chew on:

Contemporary liberals argue that it is not possible to legislate morality, giving both theoretical and practical reasons. First, virtue is a matter of free will, and therefore it cannot be coerced, so the attempt to coerce people into being virtuous is self-contradictory. Second, it is not possible to enforce legal restrictions, as the example of Prohibition demonstrates, and so attempts to enforce morality are unrealistic.
On the first point, it is absolutely correct that virtue cannot be “compelled.” It is not, strictly speaking, possible to legislate morality. Morality does not consist merely in certain actions, but in habits, dispositions of the will that incline us to act readily in a certain way. The coercion of law does not reach the soul, but only external behavior.[2] Those moralists, therefore, who think that they can literally, by law, "impose their morality on others" are mistaken.

Let ye who has not sinned, cast the first stone

 

[mope54]

Oh you're that fraudster from the other thread...interesting.

First of all, you are quoting DPI and not me so his bashing of you is between you and him.
Secondly, I don't have any sympathy for you but I do find it oddly amusing that your moral compass is spinning wildly. It's no accident in my mind that you would justify cheating on a spouse along with cheating someone at a retail store.

 

[mope54]

The book is at my house. But I'll pull it off the shelf. But here's one for you to chew on:

OK, you do need to pull it off the shelf because if you read it as loosely as you misread Wolfe's position you need to re-read it.

Wolfe believes in legislating morality. Here is his paper in its entirety
http://www.thomasinternational.org/ralphmc/readings/wolfe000.htm

and here is the very first sentence you somehow managed to gloss over:
In this paper, I would like to argue that a search for neutrality – an effort to divorce law and morality – is neither possible nor desirable.

The portion you quoted actually contradicts your earlier claim that liberals like to legislate morality. The first sentence of that portion, which you apparently also glossed over, is
Contemporary liberals argue that it is not possible to legislate morality, giving both theoretical and practical reasons.

So although I'm not sure what you tried to demonstrate with that post of yours but I'm positive it didn't accomplish what you intended since I can safely assume you did not intend to contradict yourself.

 

[mope54]

I'm sorry to hear that your wife cheated on you. Since you were hit so personally by this kind of behavior why would you be disagreeing with me that a spouse has a right to know when someone is adulterous? Methadras and Kaitian are arguing that no one has a right to know because the adulterous couple are in a consensual relationship.

I have been arguing that the partner, you in this case, have been harmed and that their behavior is non-consensual. You're a party that is directly affected by your wife's behavior and you have a right to consent or not consent to it. That was my argument and sorry if you misunderstood it.

My points about using fraud to obtain a video card are a separate issue and I stand by them.

 

[TwistedAegis]

Don't think this argument even started with morals in the slightest. It was the very legalistic concept of consent - some arguing that if someone doesn't know something is happening, they can't be said to not consent (clearly wrong), and others like myself belaboring the point. There is no moral judgement there, just a very basic clarification of the concept of consent.

And liberals/conservatives (as the US defines them) legislate morality at every turn, just different ways...trying not to take this any more off topic. It's Jeb Bush who wanted to publish women's names, height, physical description, child's name, as well as the names of the last 5 men they had sex with in the newspaper if they wanted to put their baby up for adoption, even if they were raped.

 

[Methadras]

Here are my first two posts in this thread; I welcome you to deconstruct my arguments and explain how the logic is faulty.
Claim #1

Rebuttal #1


Claim #2

Rebuttal #2

Your rebuttals never stated the why's, simply an opposing view. I stated facts of consent and non-consent with respect to behavior. All you rebutted was basically, "No, you're wrong." that's fine I supposed, but stated simply, if someone doesn't know something or totally unaware of an activity, then how can consent or non-consent be given? Ignorance is basically defined as lack of information or lack of knowledge. In the light of that definition how can consent (permission for something to happen or agreement to do something) and it's opposite, non-consent (refusal or denial of consent) be given?

If someone is ignorant that another is conducting an affair, then that means the only two people are the consenting adults engaged in the affair. Being unaware of someone else's behavior does not lay grounds for consent or non-consent, and I defy you to prove otherwise because you certainly haven't proved it logically to me in any of your rebuttals.

 

[Methadras]

Don't think this argument even started with morals in the slightest. It was the very legalistic concept of consent - some arguing that if someone doesn't know something is happening, they can't be said to not consent (clearly wrong), and others like myself belaboring the point. There is no moral judgement there, just a very basic clarification of the concept of consent.

And liberals/conservatives (as the US defines them) legislate morality at every turn, just different ways...trying not to take this any more off topic. It's Jeb Bush who wanted to publish women's names, height, physical description, child's name, as well as the names of the last 5 men they had sex with in the newspaper if they wanted to put their baby up for adoption, even if they were raped.

I clearly stated I wasn't arguing from a legalistic point of view about consent vs. non-consent or the absence of either in the realm of ignorance.

 

[LBJM]

I really hope we get the details on the Male vs female ratio of cheaters.. Also I'd like to know how many fake accounts their were. I'm not onboard with releasing personal info SSNs, addresses, etc.

 

[evilsofa]

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.

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.

Monogamy is an agreement beforehand that you do not consent to your partner having sex with anybody else.

What is monogamy if it isn't that?

 

[Deleted member 93354]

and here is the very first sentence you somehow managed to gloss over:
In this paper, I would like to argue that a search for neutrality – an effort to divorce law and morality – is neither possible nor desirable.

I read the entirety of it. But what he says is true at trying to regulate behavior is counter productive to societies wisdom to be free.

He says things like prohibition are necessary and in effect did reduce the amount of consumption of alcohol.

But what he FAILS to cite is the often generated side effects of generated morality. "Stop drinking because it's bad for you" is "In Prohibite Inse" (or "It's bad for you because I say it's bad for you.") Just like using Prostitutes is "In Prohibita Inse"

Likewise, creating an account on someplace like Ashley Madison is "In Prohibata Inse"

It's quite different from "In Prohibta Malse" (or it's prohibited because it's an act of Malice against another person.) Case in point Murder would be In Prohibta Malse.

The vast majority of "In Prohibita Inse" laws create nasty side effects. For example: Make prostitution illegal, you end up creating Pimps and girls who aren't protected from violence or disease. You end up banning drugs and you create Inner City violence in gangs and Drug Cartels.

The end point being, if you ban something and people want it bad enough, they will find a way to get it.

All efforts to control drugs and prostitutes use have been miserable failures because it created other demons in the process.

Now as to your self righteous view of "people deserve what they got with this hacking"

That isn't me to decide. It isn't for you to decide either. But there could be a lot of innocent people who got hurt by this.

1. People who just signed up out of curiosity to see what kind of people would go looking for affairs.
2. People who signed up then realized they made a mistake and immediately quit
3. Hacked credit cards and stolen identities
4. People who once had a problem with affairs, saw the saw the error of their ways and cleaned up their act.
5. People who were lonely, neglected, or who just wanted to feel attractive, but had no intents of having an affair
6. As a means of letting off steam without the intent of having an affair. This is akin to writing a hateful letter to your spouse and then tearing it up. It's a relief mechanism.
7. People who were checking up on their spouse to see if they were cheating
8. A woman (or man) who is stuck in an abusive loveless marriage because they are poor or have kids. Or they significant other is already having an affair before you.
9. Someone just looking for a female (or male) friend without sex because of a bad marriage.

So where's the justice for these people with having their name dragged through the mud?


The fact a leaked internal memo shows Ashley Madison has an extremely low "hookup" rate among users when asked in an anonymous survey. Which means most people don't have intentions of having affairs.

Statistically speaking about about 20% have affairs (low estimate) and in Italy it's been rated as high at 45%. I've had a number of friends who had affairs and it nearly destroyed their families. (In one case it did end up in divorce) But it isn't my job to keep their life in order.

I do not endorse affairs in any shape or form. They destroy the marriage and the family. And if you have children you should think about what you are doing.

The important thing about being a Christian is to not pass judgement on others, or forebear your will upon them, but to keep your own house in order. It's leading through a shining example that will encourage people to lead a "whole" life.

 

[Deleted member 93354]

I'm starting to think you are pissed because people are getting away with something you couldn't.

It's like the guy who goofs off at the office and gets accolades and you work your ass off and nobody notices. And you yell, "But he goofs off"

Give it a break. Keep your own house in order. God rewards those who are faithful and true in the end. And if you don't believe in God, then your life is in order. You shouldn't compare your life to others and get angry because someone got something you didn't.

 

[DeadSkull]

The important thing about being a Christian is to not pass judgement on others, or forebear your will upon them, but to keep your own house in order. It's leading through a shining example that will encourage people to lead a "whole" life.

I am very tired of hearing this. Please stop with the whole misinterpretation of "Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?".

You can correct a fellow brother or sister if you notice their wrongdoing that they are commiting a sin. That is even encouraged in the bible. However if you look at other peoples mistakes and consider yourself to be superior then your are being judgemental. For the Lord loves us all equally, one no more then others.

 

[Darunion]

(shortened)

That isn't me to decide. It isn't for you to decide either. But there could be a lot of innocent people who got hurt by this.
.

I actually spoke to my gf last night about this that I may or may not have an account (due to curiosity during some lonely moments in time years ago and not remembering what sites I browsed). And because the website charges to close your account I would have just spam blocked them and let it expire or idle. She had no problem with that (after a bit of teasing of course haha).

But I agree that this security breach should not be labeled with any level of benevolence or 'justice' because this will cause massive amounts of financial and emotional and in cases physical damage to lots of people. Who are we to decide what they deserve or don't? The group that broke into the website needs brought to justice as they broke several laws and could break potentially many more.

 

[Deleted member 93354]

You can correct a fellow brother or sister if you notice their wrongdoing that they are commiting a sin. That is even encouraged in the bible. However if you look at other peoples mistakes and consider yourself to be superior then your are being judgemental. For the Lord loves us all equally, one no more then others.

I never considered myself superior. But I pity those whose life is a wreck in the making.

The Bible encourages you to teach the ways of Jesus by spreading the word. But it doesn't mandate you to condemn others.

If you see a brother in trouble you offer him a helping hand and show him a better way. It's up to him to follow that path or not.

But the Bible also warns that, "Do not associate with the wicked or corrupt for they will taint your own house in time."

 

[mope54]

I read the entirety of it. But what he says is true at trying to regulate behavior is counter productive to societies wisdom to be free.

He says things like prohibition are necessary and in effect did reduce the amount of consumption of alcohol.

But what he FAILS to cite is the often generated side effects of generated morality. "Stop drinking because it's bad for you" is "In Prohibite Inse" (or "It's bad for you because I say it's bad for you.") Just like using Prostitutes is "In Prohibita Inse"

Likewise, creating an account on someplace like Ashley Madison is "In Prohibata Inse"

It's quite different from "In Prohibta Malse" (or it's prohibited because it's an act of Malice against another person.) Case in point Murder would be In Prohibta Malse.

The vast majority of "In Prohibita Inse" laws create nasty side effects. For example: Make prostitution illegal, you end up creating Pimps and girls who aren't protected from violence or disease. You end up banning drugs and you create Inner City violence in gangs and Drug Cartels.

The end point being, if you ban something and people want it bad enough, they will find a way to get it.

All efforts to control drugs and prostitutes use have been miserable failures because it created other demons in the process.

Now as to your self righteous view of "people deserve what they got with this hacking"

That isn't me to decide. It isn't for you to decide either. But there could be a lot of innocent people who got hurt by this.

1. People who just signed up out of curiosity to see what kind of people would go looking for affairs.
2. People who signed up then realized they made a mistake and immediately quit
3. Hacked credit cards and stolen identities
4. People who once had a problem with affairs, saw the saw the error of their ways and cleaned up their act.
5. People who were lonely, neglected, or who just wanted to feel attractive, but had no intents of having an affair
6. As a means of letting off steam without the intent of having an affair. This is akin to writing a hateful letter to your spouse and then tearing it up. It's a relief mechanism.
7. People who were checking up on their spouse to see if they were cheating
8. A woman (or man) who is stuck in an abusive loveless marriage because they are poor or have kids. Or they significant other is already having an affair before you.
9. Someone just looking for a female (or male) friend without sex because of a bad marriage.

So where's the justice for these people with having their name dragged through the mud?


The fact a leaked internal memo shows Ashley Madison has an extremely low "hookup" rate among users when asked in an anonymous survey. Which means most people don't have intentions of having affairs.

Statistically speaking about about 20% have affairs (low estimate) and in Italy it's been rated as high at 45%. I've had a number of friends who had affairs and it nearly destroyed their families. (In one case it did end up in divorce) But it isn't my job to keep their life in order.

I do not endorse affairs in any shape or form. They destroy the marriage and the family. And if you have children you should think about what you are doing.

The important thing about being a Christian is to not pass judgement on others, or forebear your will upon them, but to keep your own house in order. It's leading through a shining example that will encourage people to lead a "whole" life.

Your post needs some correcting.

First and foremost, regarding your claim of:
"Now as to your self righteous view of "people deserve what they got with this hacking"

I never said that and I don't believe it.

As I clarified before, I was merely responding to two people's assertion that this is nothing but consensual behavior and therefore is "no one's" business. I said that it may not be everyone's business but that, given that it's potentially harmful behavior to a 3rd party who could be directly impacted (the spouse), it's non-consensual behavior that some people have a right to know about.

Secondly, your understanding of the two latin phrases you quoted is incorrect.

The terms you are trying to discuss are malum in se and malum prohibitum.
The two terms do not hinge on "malice" (mala doesn't mean "malice" but rather "bad" in latin).
Malum in se laws are "things that are bad because they are wrong or evil in and of themselves" and malum prohibitum laws are "things that are bad because they society says so even if they aren't bad in and of themselves."

Crimes like murder, adultery, and theft are things that societies see as wrong, immoral, or evil (in the early period of conception about human behavior and motivations) and it doesn't matter if there are laws about them.

My graduate theory professor, Michael Gottfredson (author of A General Theory of Crime, which is one of the most cited and tested theories of criminal behavior but also a position I disagree with and have written my own theory in opposite that we can discuss another time), claims that all crimes stem from the basic premise of taking something by force or fraud and that this is true in all societies through all time.

Adultery is a a mala in se prohibition. Driving on the right side of the road or consuming alcohol are behaviors that the state regulates in order to keep society operating in a certain way. While I know prosecutors who would argue that drug abuse is never a victimless crime, the general population considers that kind of behavior to be choices about one's body. Adultery harms people who are not part of the decision process. Adultery is not simply a personal decision between two consenting adults. That kind of logic would allow fraud and theft because, after all, the an identity theft is simply using someone else's financial information with a consenting cashier to finalize the transaction!

That's just *one* of the many reasons to apply Kant's categorical imperative to the situation. One could also consider what it might mean to extrapolate the logic of hiding information from people in order to neuter their ability to consent out into society--Kantian ethics would conclude that people would never be able to trust one another at their word. Monogamous relationships would cease to have meaning if one had to wake up every morning and affirmatively remove access to other sex partners ("honey, I do not consent to you sleeping with someone today...this next hour...for the next ten minutes; obviously contractual agreements could not exist under that kind of logic that methadras encourages us to apply to this situation).

Thirdly, I'm not going to apply Christian standards in a discussion forum about this topic. But since you brought it up, none of those people you listed are "innocent" by Christian standards. Some of them, #8 and #9, aren't even innocent by non-Christian standards...being in a loveless marriage does not "justify" lying and deceit, it justifies dissolution of the marriage!

The ends to which some of you will go to defend adulterous and behavior that is harmful to actually innocent third parties (the spouses who are being cheated on) is beyond me but that's neither here nor there.

Fourthly, your logic is sideways on the issue of how many people cheated on the site compared to how many signed up. Signing up and not hooking up are not evidence that those people never intended to have an affair. That's simply *one* possible reason they didn't achieve their goal, but it's not the only one and with that limited knowledge about the variables you can't make that conclusion.

Lastly, you did not read that paper closely. It's clear to me and anyone else who bothered to read it after you linked it. I specifically asked you for the evidence of liberals passing laws governing morality from a book you cited earlier. I also asked you which behavioral theories you had read in that book.

Instead you cited a different conservative author and misquoted him. When I pointed out that you misquoted and/or misunderstood his main points (that liberals do *not* legislate morality even though they should and that we as a society should be regulating behavior in order to reduce it even if morals can't be changed) you then tell me he's wrong. Well, that was your source so you should be more careful about who you quote and who you read for information.

Now that you've told me your cited author is incorrect, that leaves me wondering where these theories and sources are for your information. Presumably you've had the chance to be home long enough to open the book you referenced earlier. Are there actually theories cited in there? If so, what are they?

 

[Deleted member 93354]

Your post needs some correcting.

First and foremost, regarding your claim of:
"Now as to your self righteous view of "people deserve what they got with this hacking"

I never said that and I don't believe it.

As I clarified before, I was merely responding to two people's assertion that this is nothing but consensual behavior and therefore is "no one's" business. I said that it may not be everyone's business but that, given that it's potentially harmful behavior to a 3rd party who could be directly impacted (the spouse), it's non-consensual behavior that some people have a right to know about.

Secondly, your understanding of the two latin phrases you quoted is incorrect.

The terms you are trying to discuss are malum in se and malum prohibitum.
The two terms do not hinge on "malice" (mala doesn't mean "malice" but rather "bad" in latin).
Malum in se laws are "things that are bad because they are wrong or evil in and of themselves" and malum prohibitum laws are "things that are bad because they society says so even if they aren't bad in and of themselves."

Crimes like murder, adultery, and theft are things that societies see as wrong, immoral, or evil (in the early period of conception about human behavior and motivations) and it doesn't matter if there are laws about them.

My graduate theory professor, Michael Gottfredson (author of A General Theory of Crime, which is one of the most cited and tested theories of criminal behavior but also a position I disagree with and have written my own theory in opposite that we can discuss another time), claims that all crimes stem from the basic premise of taking something by force or fraud and that this is true in all societies through all time.

Adultery is a a mala in se prohibition. Driving on the right side of the road or consuming alcohol are behaviors that the state regulates in order to keep society operating in a certain way. While I know prosecutors who would argue that drug abuse is never a victimless crime, the general population considers that kind of behavior to be choices about one's body. Adultery harms people who are not part of the decision process. Adultery is not simply a personal decision between two consenting adults. That kind of logic would allow fraud and theft because, after all, the an identity theft is simply using someone else's financial information with a consenting cashier to finalize the transaction!

That's just *one* of the many reasons to apply Kant's categorical imperative to the situation. One could also consider what it might mean to extrapolate the logic of hiding information from people in order to neuter their ability to consent out into society--Kantian ethics would conclude that people would never be able to trust one another at their word. Monogamous relationships would cease to have meaning if one had to wake up every morning and affirmatively remove access to other sex partners ("honey, I do not consent to you sleeping with someone today...this next hour...for the next ten minutes; obviously contractual agreements could not exist under that kind of logic that methadras encourages us to apply to this situation).

Thirdly, I'm not going to apply Christian standards in a discussion forum about this topic. But since you brought it up, none of those people you listed are "innocent" by Christian standards. Some of them, #8 and #9, aren't even innocent by non-Christian standards...being in a loveless marriage does not "justify" lying and deceit, it justifies dissolution of the marriage!

The ends to which some of you will go to defend adulterous and behavior that is harmful to actually innocent third parties (the spouses who are being cheated on) is beyond me but that's neither here nor there.

Fourthly, your logic is sideways on the issue of how many people cheated on the site compared to how many signed up. Signing up and not hooking up are not evidence that those people never intended to have an affair. That's simply *one* possible reason they didn't achieve their goal, but it's not the only one and with that limited knowledge about the variables you can't make that conclusion.

Lastly, you did not read that paper closely. It's clear to me and anyone else who bothered to read it after you linked it. I specifically asked you for the evidence of liberals passing laws governing morality from a book you cited earlier. I also asked you which behavioral theories you had read in that book.

Instead you cited a different conservative author and misquoted him. When I pointed out that you misquoted and/or misunderstood his main points (that liberals do *not* legislate morality even though they should and that we as a society should be regulating behavior in order to reduce it even if morals can't be changed) you then tell me he's wrong. Well, that was your source so you should be more careful about who you quote and who you read for information.

Now that you've told me your cited author is incorrect, that leaves me wondering where these theories and sources are for your information. Presumably you've had the chance to be home long enough to open the book you referenced earlier. Are there actually theories cited in there? If so, what are they?

1. I agreed with his premise. I didn't agree with his conclusion.

2. I posted that before I had a chance to go home and pull the book off the shelf

3. You told me not to bother.

4. You are correct. I misstated the Latin terms. It's been a number of years since I took criminal justice and I am working off memory.

On a side note: You would make a piss poor therapist or judge. Nothing is black or white with human nature. You're too concrete. Or what I call "Disney Syndrom" (Presentation of good and evil as black and white and not grey)

And you're right. I shouldn't have brought up Christian beliefs. Those are personally held beliefs and religion doesn't belong in a non theology based forum.

And I don't agree with affairs either.

But its not my job to regulate people's personal morality. While you say society views it as wrong, close to half those people in Italy would kindly disagree with you.

The whole point of your argument is "I could get a sexually transmitted disease if my partner cheats" to which is easily negated by two consenting parties getting tested and taking proper precautions. You make the assumption none do. I never touched another woman. I never tried to. But I always got myself tested after all my relationships were over.

 

[mope54]

1. I agreed with his premise. I didn't agree with his conclusion.

2. I posted that before I had a chance to go home and pull the book off the shelf

3. You told me not to bother.

4. You are correct. I misstated the Latin terms. It's been a number of years since I took criminal justice and I am working off memory.

On a side note: You would make a piss poor therapist or judge. Nothing is black or white with human nature. You're too concrete. Or what I call "Disney Syndrom" (Presentation of good and evil as black and white and not grey)

And you're right. I shouldn't have brought up Christian beliefs. Those are personally held beliefs and religion doesn't belong in a non theology based forum.

And I don't agree with affairs either.

But its not my job to regulate people's personal morality. While you say society views it as wrong, close to half those people in Italy would kindly disagree with you.

The whole point of your argument is "I could get a sexually transmitted disease if my partner cheats" to which is easily negated by two consenting parties getting tested and taking proper precautions. You make the assumption none do. I never touched another woman. I never tried to. But I always got myself tested after all my relationships were over.

You don't agree with his premise.

His premise is that liberals don't try to regulate morality but we should.

Your premise was that liberals try to regulate morality and that it's pointless to try.

 

[mope54]

I never told you not to bother to post your sources regarding psychological and sociological theories that state no one will do anything unless it's in their self interest and therefore liberals are wrong to try and legislate morality!

In fact, I stated the opposite and waited while you supposedly got home to pull this book off your shelf and demonstrate how it's anything other than liberals are doo doo heads who do more harm than they solve.

 

[mope54]

And no, sexually transmitted diseases are not the sum of my argument as to the harm that adultery causes.

It's the most obvious to the obtuse posters in here who apparently can't conceive of harm outside of directly punching someone in the face. An entire host of "harms" occur to someone on the victim side of a cheating spouse. I won't list them all as they should be obvious and rudimentary to any reasonable person in a civilized society and not the least someone such as yourself who seems to espouse Christian values (but oddly only as a shield for *not* criticizing immoral and damaging behavior).

 

[Deleted member 93354]

You don't agree with his premise.

His premise is that liberals don't try to regulate morality but we should.

Your premise was that liberals try to regulate morality and that it's pointless to try.

Last I check you can have multiple premises in a paper.

And to be more precise he said modern or contemporary liberals, not all liberals (told you I read it)

And legislated morality takes on many forms.

 

[Deleted member 93354]

And no, sexually transmitted diseases are not the sum of my argument as to the harm that adultery causes.

It's the most obvious to the obtuse posters in here who apparently can't conceive of harm outside of directly punching someone in the face. An entire host of "harms" occur to someone on the victim side of a cheating spouse. I won't list them all as they should be obvious and rudimentary to any reasonable person in a civilized society and not the least someone such as yourself who seems to espouse Christian values (but oddly only as a shield for *not* criticizing immoral and damaging behavior).

Jesus didn't pull Mary out and threaten to stone her. He protected her then said, "Your life is in shambles. Let me show you a better way" It was up to Mary to follow.

Everyone is capable of being a better person. But in the end they have to make that decision.

 

[mope54]

Last I check you can have multiple premises in a paper.

And to be more precise he said modern or contemporary liberals, not all liberals (told you I read it)

And legislated morality takes on many forms.

Oh, I'm quite sure you read it after I told you that you didn't read it correctly and it undermined your position. That's a separate issue from you linking to it because you thought it supported your premise that "liberals legislate morality and we (society) should not do that"

It's directly contradictory to your position.

 

[Deleted member 93354]

Oh, I'm quite sure you read it after I told you that you didn't read it correctly and it undermined your position. That's a separate issue from you linking to it because you thought it supported your premise that "liberals legislate morality and we (society) should not do that"

It's directly contradictory to your position.

Accusing me of something?

Proof of losing an argument: Attacking the other party with assumptions and not sticking to the facts

 

[mope54]

Jesus didn't pull Mary out and threaten to stone her. He protected her then said, "Your life is in shambles. Let me show you a better way" It was up to Mary to follow.

Everyone is capable of being a better person. But in the end they have to make that decision.

Why do you keep falling back on your Christian value system to debate the issue of whether having sex with someone other than your spouse is a form of non-consensual behavior when your spouse doesn't know about it or condone it?

If you want to keep going that way we can. I don't think it'll be profitable for you, but that's your decision.

I'll start by saying, according to Christian belief, the spouses become one body.
There's no possible way you can argue, for a Christian theological perspective, that *one* spouse can engage in sexual behavior with another person under the guise that it's his or her personal choice and that the aggrieved spouse does not have a right to object to such behavior.

 

[Verge]

Why the Jesus talk? This forum focuses on new technology.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-becoming-even-less-affiliated-with-religion/

 

[Deleted member 93354]

Why do you keep falling back on your Christian value system to debate the issue of whether having sex with someone other than your spouse is a form of non-consensual behavior when your spouse doesn't know about it or condone it?

If you want to keep going that way we can. I don't think it'll be profitable for you, but that's your decision.

I'll start by saying, according to Christian belief, the spouses become one body.
There's no possible way you can argue, for a Christian theological perspective, that *one* spouse can engage in sexual behavior with another person under the guise that it's his or her personal choice and that the aggrieved spouse does not have a right to object to such behavior.

You're the one who keeps bringing it up. I only replied to your reply in the last post and stated "You're right I shouldn't have brought it up in a technology forum"

But if you are going to hash it back I'll throw it right back at you spanky.

 

[mope54]

Accusing me of something?

Proof of losing an argument: Attacking the other party with assumptions and not sticking to the facts

I'm sticking to the facts.

Your premise is that "liberals try to legislate morality and that society should not try and legislate morality." You claimed you got it from Charen's book.

I asked you for the theoretical evidence you claimed was in her book.

In response you told me to chew on a paper written by Wolfe which argued the exact opposite of your position: "Liberals refuse to legislate morality but society should because it reduces harmful behavior"

Now if you read that, understood his premise, and then posted it for me to "chew on" you either were agreeing with me, didn't read it carefully, or for some unknown reason intentionally undermining your own position.

Instead you are trying to argue that I'm attacking you personally, which isn't even true by stating that I believe that you would read a paper more closely to try and find some semblance of supporting evidence of what you were claiming was in it after I pointed out it directly contradicted your position.

 

[mope54]

You're the one who keeps bringing it up. I only replied to your reply in the last post and stated "You're right I shouldn't have brought it up in a technology forum"

But if you are going to hash it back I'll throw it right back at you spanky.

I never brought up Christianity. You are either confusing me with another poster here or delusional.

 

[Deleted member 93354]

I'll start by saying, according to Christian belief, the spouses become one body.
There's no possible way you can argue, for a Christian theological perspective, that *one* spouse can engage in sexual behavior with another person under the guise that it's his or her personal choice and that the aggrieved spouse does not have a right to object to such behavior.

Maybe they aren't Christian or athiest, or dont' follow their beliefs.

I mean we could shame and stone each other and destroy things that we hold as morally wrong...

With your stance maybe we should just execute all people who make mistakes. I hear people in Afghanistan, and Pakistan are taking applications.

 

[Deleted member 93354]

I won't list them all as they should be obvious and rudimentary to any reasonable person in a civilized society and not the least someone such as yourself who seems to espouse Christian values (but oddly only as a shield for *not* criticizing immoral and damaging behavior).

If you attack my values then I have a right to defend them. Now what was this by not throwing back hash in my direction and how you don't bring it up?

If you don't want to argue on those grounds then drop it.

 

[mope54]

Maybe they aren't Christian or athiest, or dont' follow their beliefs.

I mean we could shame and stone each other and destroy things that we hold as morally wrong...

With your stance maybe we should just execute all people who make mistakes. I hear people in Afghanistan, and Pakistan are taking applications.

So you think my stance is that we should execute people who make mistakes?

Allow me to clarify my admittedly complex position for you:

Extra-marital affairs are not simply consensual sex between two people.

The spouse who is not having an affair is harmed by such behavior and has a right to know when his or her spouse is engaging in such behavior.

When a spouse does not consent to his or her partner engaging in extra-marital affairs that is a violation of trust and contract *and* makes it non-consensual behavior even if the spouse is not aware of the affair.

This behavior is considered to be harmful three major domains within human ethics:
civil society as evidence by laws against it
religious society as evidenced by rules against it
philosophical ethics as evidenced by the logic against it

If you attack my values then I have a right to defend them. Now what was this by not throwing back hash in my direction and how you don't bring it up?

If you don't want to argue on those grounds then drop it.

You seem confused. How am I attacking your values?
You keep bringing Christian values into the discussion (which aren irrelevant to my point about consensual vs. non-consensual sexual affairs) so it's fair game for me to respond that, according to that belief structure, you have no foundation to claim that extra-marital affairs are consensual sexual behavior between two adults that don't impact anyone else.

 

[Deleted member 93354]

I'm sticking to the facts.

Your premise is that "liberals try to legislate morality and that society should not try and legislate morality." You claimed you got it from Charen's book.

I never claimed any such thing. I may have put it in the same post. But I never claimed it was Charen's claim.