Ashley Madison is headquartered here in Canada. I'm not sure what you're suggesting, but I don't see our current Liberal government prosecuting them or supporting extradition to the U.S. under what would be a law which would in essence be the legislation of morality (and directly contravening the first amendment and our charter of rights and freedoms). — photographer
If you're so concerned about anti-social behaviour you might equally argue that prospective adulterers aren't deserving of protection from fraud. — photographer
If there are no prospective adulterers among the membership - people who can be encouraged or enabled to commit adultery - then it is very difficult to see who could be defrauded. — photographer
*facepalm* Yes let's see... what comparison is there between people who want to kill others because they have different beliefs, and I who want to punish those who do injustice unto others, who abuse others, and who deceive others? If protecting people from being swindled, decieved, and abused is what you call being similar to ISIS, then I feel sorry for you.On a side note, I'm having difficulty separating your caliphate from ISIS, except on the basis of tactics. — photographer
Well, you and ISIS both believe that adulterers are criminals; you seem to disagree on the punishment. You both seem willing to brush away the subtleties of the secular notion of law when it suits you. Let's be clear here: only the payer can be defrauded by Ashley Madison. — photographer
What do you think - should organisations promoting deceitfulness (think for example Ashley Madison which aims to be a dating website for people already in commited relationships, guaranteeing to keep the identity of their members secret) be outlawed, and people engaged in such activities punished by law? — Agustino
Which is a most reasonable option. You have to keep in mind that with the internet the possibility of disinformation is GREATER than the possibility of information. Hence something must be done to cut out from disinformation, so that the average person can more easily access the real information he is looking for. The average person doesn't have your intellectual capacities nor the time to judge whether information is accurate or not.Or you can follow Donald Trump's lead and censor the internet in the U.S.. — photographer
Why not?What is clear to me is that we Canadians make no such distinction, nor is adultery simpliciter any longer illegal in Canada or the U.S.. — photographer
I'm not trying to FORCE you to be different - I'm just inquiring why you are so accepting of deception, treachery, betrayal, cheating, and adultery. It seems quite inhuman to my tastes, but if the majority of Canadian people, like you, have no problem with this, then that is fine. However, Mr. Photographer - I doubt the average Canadian would in fact agree to your immoral and violent animalistic mentality. Just take a look:According to your precepts from your incoherent political thread you should respect our tolerance for adultery in Canada and buzz off — photographer
The freedom of the individual to abuse his fellow men and women? If abuse goes inside bedrooms, then the state should get its tail there and stop it. Why are you so afraid? Are you an adulterer?The freedom of the individual from arbitrary authority - which goes far beyond an expectation of privacy - is considered by some scholars (rightly I think) to be part and parcel to secularism. Our current PM's father stated it succinctly "The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.". — photographer
immoral act and a criminal act. — photographer
Yes, you are quite right BC, in this case, capitalism has acted as a means of oppression, that is why government intervention is needed to prevent this.Sites like Grindr or Ashley Madison and a million other sleazy sites exist because pointing-and-clicking adults wish for them to exist. And then too, capitalism reduces everything to the cash nexus. (KM) — Bitter Crank
What if this behavior is non-coercive, consensual but nevertheless opresses and harms third parties? Do you think it's right if privacy is used as a means to justify oppression? Afterall, most people who are cheated on would not accept remaining with their partners if they knew. Hence, they are being greatly decieved, in perhaps one of the MOST important aspects/spheres of their lives.In the larger civilian sphere, sexual activity is covered by the expectation of privacy, meaning the state does not interfere with (is not supposed to interfere with, anyway) individuals' behavior or activities in non-coercive, consensual sexual activity. — Bitter Crank
This is all good :) .The state has pursued other sites for arranging and facilitating fraud and deception. Both site operators and individual users who downloaded illegally obtained music and video were prosecuted. (All of them were not prosecuted, but some were.) — Bitter Crank
True - but then the people involved should divorce first, and then engage in whatever relationships they want, instead of pretend to maintain their marriage contract while they break it. It's not adultery itself that is wrong - but the deception that goes along with it.There is another consideration that would/should/might discourage the state from pursuing sites and participants who wish to, or have committed adultery: a flawed relationship can not be forced to be good and whole by legislative, judicial, or ecclesial authorities. — Bitter Crank
Maybe because people expect too much from marriage... if there was a more thorough going pessimism - this isn't going to make me happy, but it's the unhappiness that I choose.I much prefer the idea of long-lasting stable mutually agreeable marriages when and where children are present. Parents have a binding obligation to their children, and they (parents) should put up and shut up to the best of their ability. My preferences not withstanding, neither the church nor the state has found a way of making people be good parents, putting up with the deficiencies of the marriage, and shutting up about it, and dutifully and cheerfully doing their duty to their children. — Bitter Crank
Can - but most people would not want to do this, as it goes against their sense of justice and being done wrong.One other thing: Adultery is not unforgivable. Even if it isn't a good idea, the failures of one or both partners can be amended, reformed, and wholeness re-established. — Bitter Crank
The state of the family as it exists in 21st century America is not good. Many children are conceived and delivered by breeding pairs who are thoroughly unprepared to properly parent their offspring. They just don't know how to maintain a relationship, they don't have adequate incomes or the potential to earn them, and they don't know how to nurture healthy children and prepare them for a healthy stable life. This goes for both the male and the female in the pair.
The more urgent obligation these idiot parents have to their unfortunate children is a far more pressing issue than childless adults jacking their partners around and having extramarital affairs. — Bitter Crank
Immoral acts should be criminal (even though currently they may not be) - that is why the law exists, as an approximation for morality. Otherwise why would beating one's children be illegal? The justification is clearly because such an act is immoral. — Agustino
True - but then the people involved should divorce first, and then engage in whatever relationships they want, instead of pretend to maintain their marriage contract while they break it. It's not adultery itself that is wrong - but the deception that goes along with it. — Agustino
Immoral acts should be criminal (even though currently they may not be) - that is why the law exists, as an approximation for morality. Otherwise why would beating one's children be illegal? The justification is clearly because such an act is immoral. — Agustino
But I think the former can be explained by the extension of the idea of a citizen who deserves the protection of the law — photographer
Well - I don't really. I think man is both angel and devil; there's both a principle and source of altrusim in us, and a principle of selfishness. But yes - I think we are bound to always make mistakes regardless of what we do.Being the pessimist you are, you surely hold to the idea of a profoundly flawed, lying, cheating, stealing, sneaking, and conniving humankind whose very nature it is to be hypocritical — Bitter Crank
Agreed.It's one thing if people are just too stupid to behave properly. They can be taught, trained, and schooled. It is quite another to have high expectations for people to behave morally -- especially in behavior powerfully driven by gonads which have no interest at all in morality. (A stiff dick has no morals.) No amount of education has ever prevented people from sinning in all of the various and sundry ways to which we are prone. No amount of force has ever worked either in this area. — Bitter Crank
Definitely.Had we more leisure, more imagination, more energy, more money, more time -- we'd probably get more sinning done. — Bitter Crank
Sure - but I think the emotional damage done to one's spouse due to cheating is in many cases worse than the damage done by every-day kind of gluttony, greed, sloth, etc. It is the damage that we should prevent and punish, not the sin itself.Your particular sin may not be sexual; perhaps it is related to gluttony, greed, jealousy, or sloth -- I don't know, there are various possibilities. It doesn't matter, because sin is sin. Lust as much as larceny. — Bitter Crank
Sure - but at least let's seriously try not to hurt others.Not only is sin sin, but we are incapable of not sinning, Left to our own devices, we will sin. I will, you will, he will, she will. Everybody. — Bitter Crank
Yes, but the point isn't to lament harmful behavior (such as stealing for example, which still goes on even if there is a law and punishment against it), but rather to prevent it as much as possible and to punish it when it can't be prevented.This is, see, a nice pessimistic way of looking at morals and behavior. One can lament naughty behavior, but then realize we can't help it. You can't help it either. — Bitter Crank
Okay, agreed. I never said ALL adultery should be illegal. In an open marriage adultery should be perfectly legal since both partners agree and no one is harmed. BUT!! In the case of closed marriages, people are greatly harmed by their partner's adultery. Hence laws need to be implemented to prevent, and if not, to punish those who decide to become harmful elements of society.Modern legal theory is that the purpose of law is to prevent people from harming others, not from being "immoral." — Landru Guide Us
Very Marxist - but - factually wrong. These theories are first of all speculations. There is no empirical, undeniable proof. But - if we start from first principles - I think we can develop a plausible theory. Nature's overarching interest (a metaphor for what will statistically happen over the long term) is to develop the strongest species possible. Nature puts the following constraints: man can fertilise as many females as he wants, a female can only be fertilised once afterwhich for 9 months she must be protected to give birth (a very painful experience, which was very probable to cause the death of the female as well in the past), and then the baby must be protected. Nature's interest is that the alpha male fertilises as many females as possible - hence showing us that it is man's nature to be polygamous. However - given the biological constraints put on the female body - Nature's interest is also that males stay with females, and protect them and their babies after birth. Hence showing us that females must by nature be monogamous (of course there are exceptions, but those are only deviations). Not only is it female nature to be monogamous - but men also want their women to be monogamous. Why? When the alpha male saw other males lurking around his women, if he wasn't careful and annihilated them as soon as possible, they would mate with his women. Then the women would be unable to mate for the next 9 months, and would also risk dying through child birth. Hence Nature had to make the alpha male stop this from happening, so that he would be the one spreading his genes. How? Enter jealousy. Nature must also have given women the arsenal necessary to keep hold of the alpha male - beauty, charm, and - in case of conflict with other females - deceit. Hence Nature made it such that women desire the alpha male to reproduce only with them - in other words that the alpha male was also monogamous. Herein lies the birth of conflict, as the alpha male is desired to be something other than he is.I find Ashley Madison to be an incredibly moral thing. Your relationship is almost certainly a vacuous sham, you are most likely biologically predisposed to want to fuck as much as possible but aren't doing so for a variety of nonsensical reasons, you're probably unhappy in your relationship, listening to Katy Perry Taylor Swift definitely won't help you but their constantly being spammed on the radio makes you believe certain things are more important than they should be, society frowns upon your thoughts and ideas when it comes to sex, society essentially corralled you into a family unit so as to ensure you reproduce the next generation of labor, you teach your children the same bullshit about love and marriage as you were taught, which, let's not forget, is a huge reason why you are incredibly unhappy in the first place, and you give too much value to what is simply the act of coitus. — discoii
Why are you assuming heterosexual men here? Also, people feel sexually aroused even when they don't personally consciously want a child. You know, sex is fun and feels good for the majority of people. People like to have it a lot.Very Marxist - but - factually wrong. These theories are first of all speculations. There is no empirical, undeniable proof. But - if we start from first principles - I think we can develop a plausible theory. Nature's overarching interest (a metaphor for what will statistically happen over the long term) is to develop the strongest species possible. Nature puts the following constraints: man can fertilise as many females as he wants, a female can only be fertilised once afterwhich for 9 months she must be protected to give birth (a very painful experience, which was very probable to cause the death of the female as well in the past), and then the baby must be protected. Nature's interest is that the alpha male fertilises as many females as possible - hence showing us that it is man's nature to be polygamous. However - given the biological constraints put on the female body - Nature's interest is also that males stay with females, and protect them and their babies after birth. Hence showing us that females must by nature be monogamous (of course there are exceptions, but those are only deviations). Not only is it female nature to be monogamous - but men also want their women to be monogamous. Why? When the alpha male saw other males lurking around his women, if he wasn't careful and annihilated them as soon as possible, they would mate with his women. Then the women would be unable to mate for the next 9 months, and would also risk dying through child birth. Hence Nature had to make the alpha male stop this from happening, so that he would be the one spreading his genes. How? Enter jealousy. Nature must also have given women the arsenal necessary to keep hold of the alpha male - beauty, charm, and - in case of conflict with other females - deceit. Hence Nature made it such that women desire the alpha male to reproduce only with them - in other words that the alpha male was also monogamous. Herein lies the birth of conflict, as the alpha male is desired to be something other than he is. — Agustino
Nature's interest, as I said, is in reproduction. Homosexual sex cannot be explained by this, but must rather be explained by a derivative of these basic principles (it CAN be explained - but I don't see the point of going into it; it's not related to the explanation above in any way).Why are you assuming heterosexual men here? — discoii
Sexual arousal is the mechanism that Nature uses in order to get you to achieve its aims (reproduction). Otherwise, how could it get you to reproduce? Of course most people don't consciously desire reproduction, but rather "fun" or something like that. I am not saying that Nature doesn't bribe you as it were in order to get you to reproduce. Of course it does. But people, they are, however, most often unaware of how they will react to different situations that will occur, because they don't have a solid understanding of themselves. Many men don't understand a priori that they would feel extremely jealous if they saw other men having sex with whoever they see as their sexual mate. Their intelligence just isn't strong enough. Once it happens, then they start realising. So they get into all sorts of dangerous situations, because they don't understand the dangers.Also, people feel sexually aroused even when they don't personally consciously want a child. You know, sex is fun and feels good for the majority of people. People like to have it a lot. — discoii
I am talking about Nature's interest. Of course women love sex, otherwise how could Nature get them to have it?? Women could not have sex without getting pregnant in the past. Now, man has found a way to circumvent Nature's aims (and even this isn't very successful), as people who repeatedly do this, will reproduce less, and will in the end be replaced by those who reproduce more (Europe's population is declining - because we use condoms and have subverted Nature's interest - not a problem, in 200 years, those who use condoms will not exist anymore - Nature is smarter than us, in the end it keeps us as its slaves, even while we think in our arrogance that we are masters). Man, also because he is unaware of how Nature has made him - fails to realise that, even though pregnancies can be avoided now, this does not mean that sex can be allowed to go on completely free. Why? Because when I see another man having sex with my wife, even though I know she won't get pregnant, I still want to kill him. My natural impulse, which was developed and strengthened over millions of years, is and will always be there. You cannot overcome it. I will still feel terribly angry (much more angry than if you stole my car, beat me up, mocked me, etc.) Of course I may try to control it, but, I may not be able to (and it's reasonable that I may not be able to - you have no reason to expect me to). Nature gave me that instinct such that I would prevent others from approaching my sexual mate. I will go on having that instinct, because my subconscious brain does not understand condoms, avoiding pregnancies, etc. For it, sex = pregnancy, end of story.Women like to have sex too, and not only for bearing children, and you do know that women can still have sex while pregnant, right? — discoii
As far as biological evolution is concerned, if I have sex for personal interest (which is pleasure), then its aims are fulfilled. Full stop. Biological evolution has no conscious mind to realise that I could, in millions of years, find a way to circumvent this. So yes - my theory DOES say that men and women love and desire to have sex for fun. However, it explains the origin of this desire - Nature allows this desire because it fulfills its interests :)Who cares what nature thinks? You're a human. Humans do things that aren't a direct byproduct of the function of human cyclical desires all the time. For example: having sex without intending to reproduce. Your theory has to be able to explain the instances where humans wish to have sex but not reproduce. It currently cannot. For the record, your theory is almost certainly wrong. — discoii
You my friend. But most people, as I showed above, are STRONGLY against adultery, and would NEVER forgive their partners if they committed it. I didn't say there aren't deviations in Nature, which don't fit the general trend. Of course there are. But this says nothing about the natural tendency of human beings. So in order to universalise any element from your personal experience you need to make it fit. You can't. You just tell me you are like this, and therefore everyone is like this. I have my own peculiarities which don't agree with the natural tendency. For example, I wouldn't want more than one woman even if I could. Most men aren't like me, instead they agree with the natural tendency to want more than one woman if they can. For something to be a natural tendency it doesn't mean we all agree with it. Heterosexuality is a natural tendency, even though there are homosexuals (deviations from the natural tendency) out there. Men being polygamous is true, even if there are wierdos like me out there who are monogamous.Don't you find it interesting that you have this senseless impulse that allegedly was strengthened over millions of years, yet I, also a human, don't care whatsoever if my girlfriend fucks whomever? — discoii
Thanks Captain Obvious, I didn't know that already.This is a fact of human life: heterosexual girls tend to like cock, heterosexual men tend to like pussy — discoii
No you can't reject it. Fact of the matter is that MOST people do not agree with such things. Ashley Madison is simply a community of outliers (and yes, even a community of 50 million outliers is nothing compared to the world's population of 7 billion).But I can reject your claim that humans have this strengthened impulse to consider another person as property because... well, Ashley Madison exists, and that's millions of data points to support the contrary to your claim. — discoii
Why is protecting people from harming each other (because immorality means bringing harm to another) totalitarian? — Agustino
Clearly not, since there are millions of users on Ashley Madison, and millions more on other websites that are meant for the same or similar purposes. The best you can do is claim that most people think they do not agree with such things. You can try to find a poll that supports your claim, but it would be entirely flawed since there's the pressure of not being honest in answering said polls. A site with millions of paying customers engaging in consensual sex with people that aren't their partner is a much more reliable measure of people's opinions here.No you can't reject it. Fact of the matter is that MOST people do not agree with such things. — Agustino
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.