4 ms·

I'm not accusing them of being cheaters, I'm accusing them of signing up for a website with the explicit goal of either cheating on your partner or entering a r

by zajd 11y ago

I'm not accusing them of being cheaters, I'm accusing them of signing up for a website with the explicit goal of either cheating on your partner or entering a relationship with someone who is doing so. Whether or not that's moral is up the individual to decide (in my eyes, it's not, but that's pretty irrelevant to my point). Either way, leaking the data was NOT a moral thing to do.

acqq 11y ago
> I'm accusing them of signing up for a website with the explicit goal of either cheating on your partner or entering a relationship with someone who is doing so. Are they "guilty" even if that very action of them (signing in to the site and "just looking") effectively reduced the total number of cheats in the world? Is the site "guilty" if their "grand total" had the same effect?
- zajd 11y ago
  Yes. No, it's not equivalent to cheating on your partner, but it's still wrong. Much like drawing/distributing pictures of sexualized children is still wrong even if it's an outlet that (and you can't prove this, which is where the real problem with your logic lies) prevents a child from being abused.
  - acqq 11y ago
    Thank you. I have no more questions. The start of this discussion was the assumption that every person on the list made the actions that hurt others, validity of which I questioned (asking if even the majority did something that hurt anybody, giving the arguments that with the high probability most didn't actually hurt anybody and maybe even reduced the number of actual "cheats"). And you claim that you "don't condemn" everybody but still find everybody "guilty" for doing the "wrong" thing to the equivalence of an unproved but possible child abuse. O-K.
    - zajd 11y ago
      Quite the edit there. The start of the discussion was someone saying he found it hard to feel bad for those outed by the leak and then you writing some paragraphs about how he was condemning those individuals. All I was trying to add was a little nuance. > Are they "guilty" even if that very action of them (signing in to the site and "just looking") effectively reduced the total number of cheats in the world? This is what I was talking about, it's a classic defense of cartoon depictions of child pornography, which I find immoral. Go to a therapist if you're struggling with the temptation to cheat on your significant other, not a dating site for cheaters.
      - acqq 11y ago
        > Go to a therapist if you're struggling with the temptation to cheat on your significant other, not a dating site for cheaters. It seems that here most of these that you like "outed" and consider "guilty" haven't had the significant other.
        zajd 11y ago
        That I like outed? I told you the leak was not a good nor moral thing.
        acqq 11y ago
        I agree with you: that leak was not a moral thing.

by zajd 11y ago

acqq 11y ago

> I'm accusing them of signing up for a website with the explicit goal of either cheating on your partner or entering a relationship with someone who is doing so. Are they "guilty" even if that very action of them (signing in to the site and "just looking") effectively reduced the total number of cheats in the world? Is the site "guilty" if their "grand total" had the same effect?

zajd 11y ago
Yes. No, it's not equivalent to cheating on your partner, but it's still wrong. Much like drawing/distributing pictures of sexualized children is still wrong even if it's an outlet that (and you can't prove this, which is where the real problem with your logic lies) prevents a child from being abused.
- acqq 11y ago
  Thank you. I have no more questions. The start of this discussion was the assumption that every person on the list made the actions that hurt others, validity of which I questioned (asking if even the majority did something that hurt anybody, giving the arguments that with the high probability most didn't actually hurt anybody and maybe even reduced the number of actual "cheats"). And you claim that you "don't condemn" everybody but still find everybody "guilty" for doing the "wrong" thing to the equivalence of an unproved but possible child abuse. O-K.
  - zajd 11y ago
    Quite the edit there. The start of the discussion was someone saying he found it hard to feel bad for those outed by the leak and then you writing some paragraphs about how he was condemning those individuals. All I was trying to add was a little nuance. > Are they "guilty" even if that very action of them (signing in to the site and "just looking") effectively reduced the total number of cheats in the world? This is what I was talking about, it's a classic defense of cartoon depictions of child pornography, which I find immoral. Go to a therapist if you're struggling with the temptation to cheat on your significant other, not a dating site for cheaters.
    - acqq 11y ago
      > Go to a therapist if you're struggling with the temptation to cheat on your significant other, not a dating site for cheaters. It seems that here most of these that you like "outed" and consider "guilty" haven't had the significant other.
      - zajd 11y ago
        That I like outed? I told you the leak was not a good nor moral thing.
        acqq 11y ago
        I agree with you: that leak was not a moral thing.