You might want to reread some passages of the bible. The bible tells you not to judge but to correct and admonish another one is alright.
Would you ignore theft if it was happening in front of you?
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Online Cheating Site Hacked
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
You might want to reread some passages of the bible. The bible tells you not to judge but to correct and admonish another one is alright.
Would you ignore theft if it was happening in front of you?
D
Deleted member 93354
Guest
Okay lets tackle these once and for all:
Lets list some situations WHERE no harm comes to the spouse. What if the spouse is in a coma? Or can no longer have sex? Lets say the risk of sex is eliminated by testing and it's discrete.
The same people who passed the laws also broke them. You know how many congressmen and presidents had affairs?
A number of Asian countries have no taboo against having a marital affair. And again 1 out of 5 at least would disagree or 40 some percent in italy would disagree. I would hardly call that a mandate against affairs.
On a personal level, I believe affairs break trust, they destroy the spouse, the likelihood of you getting caught is high. If you have children they will suffer irreparably as the marriage deteriorates. There will be financial harm. There will be mental harm. There will be lots of nights of pain hurt and regret. It will likely end in divorce. These need to be the motivations. I've seen it happen to too many friends.
But I'm not going to force a horse to drink water. The horse has to be willing to drink water to heal the wrongs.
You most certainly did make that claim.
You wrote that you her book contains psychological, sociological, and political theories, as well as case studies, explaining that you can't force people to do the right thing.
You then followed that up by summarizing her work as "legislated morality does not work."
You were using her book to leverage your point that "liberals always try to legislate morality and it doesn't work."
When I asked you to give me examples of the specific theories she used, you replied that you would do so when you got home and pulled it off your bookshelf. You then followed that up with posting a paper by a conservative author that you implied would support your position. I read his paper and explained to you that both his premises directly contradict both of yours.
And here we are now...waiting to hear from Charen's book why we should be reading it and trying to steer you away from resorting to Christianity in some oddly bizarre rendition of somehow supporting the notion that spouses don't have a right to know when their cheating partners are engaging in extra-marital affairs.
Just get the book and answer the question so we can put this to rest.
A spouse is *always* harmed by an extra-marital affair.
Even if the spouse is in a coma that does not make the extra-marital affair "consensual."
When someone steals something and then returns without anyone finding out it or the person who is stolen from doesn't need it, we can not conclude "no harm done."
This is your logic.
D
Deleted member 93354
Guest
admonish is quite different from stone to death.
Exposing <potential> cheaters in a public light is a public stoning.
And seeing someone getting mugged is a lot different then seeing someone use drugs. Again it's personal versus external.
D
Deleted member 93354
Guest
A spouse is *always* harmed by an extra-marital affair.
Even if the spouse is in a coma that does not make the extra-marital affair "consensual."
When someone steals something and then returns without anyone finding out it or the person who is stolen from doesn't need it, we can not conclude "no harm done."
This is your logic.
Quite frankly no harm was done is something is stolen and it wasn't needed. But it doesn't mean it was right.
There's a difference.
Consent does not hinge on level of harm.
Then the spouse in a coma can not consent.
The affair is non-consensual.
Unless the spouse consents to the extra-marital affair, it is still non-consensual.
Monogamy does not solely rest on whether someone can or wants to have sex and not having sex with someone is not construed to grant consent for a monogamous partner to go and have sex with someone else.
Using that logic, if someone's wife says she has a headache that would be "consent" to go and have sex with someone else that night?
I certainly hope that cheating partners have the care and consideration to test themselves before having sex with other people. Certain STD's take decades to detect and some are non-detectable. It's also less likely that someone willing to lie and harm his or her spouse would care enough to consider STD's, but even if one did that's the least of the spouses concerns.
Regardless, taking precautions does not turn non-consensual behavior into consensual behavior. The cheater can not say to the monogamous partner, "I was tested for STD's therefore your consent is assumed."
D
Deleted member 93354
Guest
And I told you I only agreed with one of his premises. Not all of them. It had no relation to the book.
I believe it is you sir who is confused.
BTW: Have a nice day. I'm done.
He disagrees with both of your premises.
Thank you for bowing out of the discussion.
D
Deleted member 93354
Guest
I didn't bow out. I'm just agreeing to disagree.
Life's morality is never black and white.
Life's morality is never black and white.
Morality is never black and white and no one here claimed otherwise.
The issue of whether extra-marital affairs are consensual or non-consensual behavior that only involve two persons is black and white, however.
The question you have to ask yourself is why you believe that extra-marital affairs are consensual behavior between two people that never involve anyone else, including the spouse.
You don't have to answer it here, but it's an odd curiosity to the many posters in here who engaged in the debate between myself, TwistedAegis and Methadras and Kaitian.
D
Deleted member 93354
Guest
Husband: I didn't consent to you spending $100,000 in coach handbags using our second mortgage fund.
Wife: I didn't consent to you being gone for two years at a time doing contracting jobs in the middle east.
Wife: I didn't consent to you criticizing how I keep house
There's lots of consent broken in marriage. Affairs are just another one. Again I'm not justifying them. But you really can't work on consent. Consent if broken a lot. We don't always get our way in marriage. This is where open communication, therapy or a clergy official is needed if you have these problems.
D
Deleted member 93354
Guest
Now I'm done.
TwistedAegis
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2009
- Messages
- 8,958
Which is a completely different argument than saying if a spouse doesn't know they're being cheated on, they can't be said to have not consented...
jtm55
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 551
Hi All
Lets say that your spouse/partner went to that website & had a sexual relationship without your knowledge/consent. How would you feel? Your answer will tell you how you feel about websites that facilitate that type of behavior.
As to the hackers they are wrong, no two ways about it.
Now to the participants of this website. Personally I will feel bad for them especially the spouse/partner, if the information is made public, as relationships will be in some cases unrepairable.
I believe half the States have laws against adultery, however most don't enforce them.
Which leads to a moral question, at least for me. Should such sites be allowed to exist?
Lets say that your spouse/partner went to that website & had a sexual relationship without your knowledge/consent. How would you feel? Your answer will tell you how you feel about websites that facilitate that type of behavior.
As to the hackers they are wrong, no two ways about it.
Now to the participants of this website. Personally I will feel bad for them especially the spouse/partner, if the information is made public, as relationships will be in some cases unrepairable.
I believe half the States have laws against adultery, however most don't enforce them.
Which leads to a moral question, at least for me. Should such sites be allowed to exist?
How would you go about disallowing their existence?
jtm55
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 551
I think it's a really good question but I don't know that the format of this place allows a reasonable answer. I almost had an entire thesis worked up in my head before I realized that it'd be basically useless to post it in this discussion.
But I think the question is spot on, because if we follow the logic of that I've been laying out (and the logic of what I claimed at least three major paradigms of human relations would conclude about this kind of behavior), then it stands to reason that one (perhaps the only) valid conclusion is that they ought not to exist. We certainly don't allow websites that specifically cater to stolen merchandise, prostitution, or narcotics--although their existence persists under the guise of other kinds of transactions.
And in the main it's reasonable to suspect that other match making sites are used by people engaging in illicit behavior, which one could argue is different from allowing a site explicitly for such purposes.
But from a personal perspective, I'm loathe to suggest what should or should not exist in a society.
I also could lay out a number of theories that would suggest certain groups of people would be targeted over others if such sites were outlawed (and certainly how the carrying out of sentences for the behavior itself would be disproportional towards some but not others).
So I'm conflicted, jtm, on how to answer that question while acknowledging that's not a particularly satisfying answer. It's not satisfying to myself and it wouldn't be the first time I've been able to come to a definitive position about a complex issue like balancing freedoms to do something versus the harm those behaviors could cause other interested parties.
That pendulum swing between freedom versus harm is the arc our jurisprudence has been going through throughout our history and it's becoming increasingly relevant in the 21st century as we move toward prioritizing security in light of recent threats.
But I think the question is spot on, because if we follow the logic of that I've been laying out (and the logic of what I claimed at least three major paradigms of human relations would conclude about this kind of behavior), then it stands to reason that one (perhaps the only) valid conclusion is that they ought not to exist. We certainly don't allow websites that specifically cater to stolen merchandise, prostitution, or narcotics--although their existence persists under the guise of other kinds of transactions.
And in the main it's reasonable to suspect that other match making sites are used by people engaging in illicit behavior, which one could argue is different from allowing a site explicitly for such purposes.
But from a personal perspective, I'm loathe to suggest what should or should not exist in a society.
I also could lay out a number of theories that would suggest certain groups of people would be targeted over others if such sites were outlawed (and certainly how the carrying out of sentences for the behavior itself would be disproportional towards some but not others).
So I'm conflicted, jtm, on how to answer that question while acknowledging that's not a particularly satisfying answer. It's not satisfying to myself and it wouldn't be the first time I've been able to come to a definitive position about a complex issue like balancing freedoms to do something versus the harm those behaviors could cause other interested parties.
That pendulum swing between freedom versus harm is the arc our jurisprudence has been going through throughout our history and it's becoming increasingly relevant in the 21st century as we move toward prioritizing security in light of recent threats.
jtm55
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 551
Hi All
Appreciate your response Mope54. You're right, there's no easy answer to my question.
The question I asked in response is inseparable from your question. As noted earlier in the thread, adultery is now only illegal in 21 states, and this number is going down steadily as states repeal their adultery laws. Attempts to enforce these laws result in those laws being declared unconstitutional.
You are asking whether sites that discuss or arrange something legal should exist. In order to disallow such sites, you would need to pass legislation that prevents discussion or arrangement of something that is legal.
Just to clarify, the laws being ruled unconstitutional are in regards to laws like sodomy (anal and oral sex between two consenting adults), sex outside of marriage, and things that do not involved non-consenting other parties.
The laws against adultery are not questionable on Constitutional grounds. In fact, the Lawrence v. Texas case that struck down sodomy laws reaffirmed the constitutionality of adultery laws. What two people do in the privacy of their homes and whether that can be infringed upon by the state is a completely distinct matter from the state's desire to regulate marriage and whether harms to family units and non-consenting adults are an issue for the states to decide.
jtm55
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 551
Hi All
OK. I don't have a realistic answer, which is why I said I only asked the question. Now you've stated that adultery is illegal in 21 states. I knew that there are states that have laws against it but rarely are they enforced. the repealing of these laws is probably why said laws are no longer enforced.
I've heard it said that you can't legislate morality. So i guess I've got my answer.
sliverjazz
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2004
- Messages
- 747
Our society is absolutely addicted to entertainment (most of which is utter trash), tens of millions of us are hooked on drugs (both legal and illegal), and we have murdered more than 56 million of our own babies.
Phoenix333
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2009
- Messages
- 3,510
Of course you can. Here's a few examples:
Polygamy: Illegal. Consent is irrelevant.
Incest: Illegal. Consent is irrelevant.
Pedophilia: Illegal. Consent is irrelevant.
Possession of child pornography: Illegal, regardless of the sexual orientation of the owner.
Bestiality: Illegal (but not everywhere). Consent is irrelevant where illegal.
Cannibalism: Illegal, even if the corpse was donated for that purpose.
Public nudity: Illegal in most places.
Dry counties: Some places in the US still prohibit the sale of alcohol.
Hate crime laws: An equal-opportunity murderer will get a lighter sentence than a bigoted one, even if the crimes are materially identical.
And that's just in the US. Go to a country where Shariah law is practiced and you can see just how much that particular brand of morality is legislated. Societies legislate morality all the time. The phrase "You can't legislate morality" is typically used by secularists that eschew specific moral principles that originate with Christianity that are not in line with secular thinking. As long as a particular moral principle is generally accepted by society as a whole then that society will legislate to that effect because there's little to no opposition to it doing otherwise. When you jump from one culture to another you'll find marked differences in what is or is not acceptable behavior, and laws that reflect such.
jtm55
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 551
Hi All
I was referring specifically to Adultery. It a law on the books in about 21 states but it's rarely enforced. In addition, more states are repealing said law. Also was speaking of the US. I'm well aware that other countries have laws forbidding quite a few things as well as police that don't carry guns & shoot their citizens. All that's neither here or there as we are discussing online sites that facilitate cheating/adultery.
Legislating against online sites that facilitate a legal activity is not well received here in the US due to the First Amendment of the Constitution.
Gambling is the only such activity I can think of - online gambling has been getting a big crackdown lately - and it barely qualifies as legal since it's only legal in two states and that number is unlikely to ever increase.
Gambling is the only such activity I can think of - online gambling has been getting a big crackdown lately - and it barely qualifies as legal since it's only legal in two states and that number is unlikely to ever increase.
But his question hinges on the illegality of adultery not the immorality of it.
Since adultery is illegal in nearly half of the US sites explicitly targeting that behavior are theoretically more susceptible to legislation than online gambling. Certainly sites explicitly catering to narcotics and prostitution are targeted by law enforcement.
That is one potential fallout from this site's "affairs" hitting mainstream news.
It's important to understand that cases that appear similar but with minutia of differences won't apply across the board.
The first difference that is important to note is that the Sheriff was pressuring credit card companies to sever their financial relationship with the website. The second difference is that the website was merely an adult site and not one explicitly for illicit behavior.
You'll notice in my above comments I was careful to condition my point with the fact of a site *explicitly* for illegal behavior. The fact that an adult site where adults might or might not engage in illegal behavior is a grey area for the court. Hence we have CL ads where people advertise behaviors that are clearly understood by the patrons to be solicitations for either drugs or prostitution. In the article you linked, the reporter noted that the Sheriff successfully pressured CL into removing its "adult services" section a few years ago.
The judge's ruling doesn't have a bearing on whether the Sheriff can pressure the website itself and it does not have a bearing on whether a site explicitly devoted to illegal behavior can be shut down despite first amendment claims. Certainly the Silk Road and, as previously mentioned, various gambling sites are being shut down along with a host of sites that were selling drug paraphernalia during Operation Pipe Dreams.
It's long held precedent that there exists no protection of first amendment rights in the commission of a crime.