5 ms·

> Then that's a breach of contract between two private parties which is of absolutely no relevance to outside observers. That's one way to look at things. I ha

> Then that's a breach of contract between two private parties which is of absolutely no relevance to outside observers. That's one way to look at things. I happen to have a different philosophy about marriage, that it actually does affect other people, and since you're so understanding, I'm sure you'll grant that my philosophy is equally valid.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
Well, I'd like to hear you actually elaborate on your differing philosophy. That'd be helpful.
tedunangst 11y ago
Wasn't there some other difference of opinion regarding the philosophy of marriage recently?
jchrisa 11y ago
A little reading would let you know that there is a significant chunk of happily married people who don't think monogamy is for them. They think honesty is more important. I don't know if these folks are AM users or if they've got a better scene.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  Married people's thoughts on monogamy are irrelevant. The argument was that the breach of contract is no one else's business except for the two parties to that contract. This was rebutted by someone claiming that they hold value in knowledge about another's breach of a contract. What I don't understand is the reasoning that says a breach of contract is only meaningful to the parties of the contract. If someone is influenced by knowledge that someone breached another contract, then that knowledge is meaningful outside the confines of the contract.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    The argument isn't that it isn't meaningful, it's that it shouldn't be.
    - jsprogrammer 11y ago
      Well, I reviewed the argument that I was referring to and it wasn't what you are claiming. Here's the text: >Then that's a breach of contract between two private parties which is of absolutely no relevance to outside observers. The argument claimed that the breach was "of absolutely no relevance". Yes, the word "meaningful" wasn't used, but I dare you to provide a definition of the word "meaningful". >The argument isn't that it isn't meaningful, it's that it shouldn't be. Can you point me to someone making that argument?
      - icebraining 11y ago
        I'd say the part where vezzy-fnord talks about the couple's "prerogative" and "things that are none of your concern" set the context in terms of moral rights, not whether it can possible affect the other person. I can see where one might read it differently, though, but I confess I fail to see the point in discussing from that POV.
        jsprogrammer 11y ago
        Eh, there's very little here that has much point in discussion. I only wanted to point out that this particular sub-thread was going off the rails (as many are, but I can't respond to all of them due to time constraints and HN's hard rate limit). The information can't be destroyed now, so there is little point in discussions about what should or shouldn't have happened in this specific instance. If someone breached a contract and this provides evidence to those ends, then it's simply a fact. I completely understand that facts can upset people. If someone didn't breach a contract...well I'm not sure what the worry is in this specific instance. In any case, it obviously sucks when information you gave in trust is leaked out and there is certainly a lesson to learn in data security here. There also seems to be a lesson to perhaps not trust companies who apparently fundamentally produce and specifically market a trust violation product. Of course, if you are in the market for such a product, formal calculation of your preference function may not be a priority. >I'd say the part where vezzy-fnord talks about the couple's "prerogative" and "things that are none of your concern" set the context in terms of moral rights, not whether it can possible affect the other person. This makes it sounds like vezzy-fnord is arguing for some kind of thought control regime; a regime where one may selectively engineer the exact perception to create in others. If someone can perceive something, they should be able to contemplate it. Just as it is a couple's prerogative to seek court mediation for their breached contracts (this is the right the argument afforded the couple), it is another's prerogative to act on information that is known to them.
- humanrebar 11y ago
  I'm aware of those people. I'll formally apologize in a twitter post if a significant portion of the AM clients were in open marriages. > They think honesty is more important. Yeah, that's a false dichotomy. And are monogamous marriages dishonest? That's oddly judgmental for an appeal for open-mindedness. Or you meant something else by "honesty", like realistic?. I guess that's slightly less judgy. A lot of these philosophical arguments get bogged down in boring bickering about word definitions. Marriage, traditionally, has implied "monogamous". At least "adultery" and "cheating" do.
- monochromatic 11y ago
  > significant chunk of happily married people who don't think monogamy is for them There's a significant chunk that is ok with cheating. There's a far smaller chunk that's ok with the other person cheating.
oldmanjay 11y ago
If your philosophy involves your opinions mattering in people's private concerns, no, it's not valid.
- humanrebar 11y ago
  No. I think marriages actually affect people not involved in the marriage commitment itself. Especially when you consider populations and not just hypothetical individuals.
  - Absentinsomniac 11y ago
    Yeah, but what does that have to do with random unassociated outside observers? Are you saying society at large has some kind of right to intimate details of personal relationships?
    - humanrebar 11y ago
      I'm saying it's impossible, especially across large populations, to assert that infidelity is wholly a private matter. It's a compelling notion that doesn't stand up to facts. Be sure to consider things like STD rates, unplanned pregnancy rates, rates of single parenthood, divorces resulting from infidelity, and so on. I can assert that this data breach is immoral while also asserting that infidelity, especially organized infidelity, is not simply an intimate detail. I'm not sure why everyone feels compelled to square off into two camps on every issue.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago

Well, I'd like to hear you actually elaborate on your differing philosophy. That'd be helpful.

tedunangst 11y ago

Wasn't there some other difference of opinion regarding the philosophy of marriage recently?

jchrisa 11y ago

A little reading would let you know that there is a significant chunk of happily married people who don't think monogamy is for them. They think honesty is more important. I don't know if these folks are AM users or if they've got a better scene.

jsprogrammer 11y ago
Married people's thoughts on monogamy are irrelevant. The argument was that the breach of contract is no one else's business except for the two parties to that contract. This was rebutted by someone claiming that they hold value in knowledge about another's breach of a contract. What I don't understand is the reasoning that says a breach of contract is only meaningful to the parties of the contract. If someone is influenced by knowledge that someone breached another contract, then that knowledge is meaningful outside the confines of the contract.
- icebraining 11y ago
  The argument isn't that it isn't meaningful, it's that it shouldn't be.
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    Well, I reviewed the argument that I was referring to and it wasn't what you are claiming. Here's the text: >Then that's a breach of contract between two private parties which is of absolutely no relevance to outside observers. The argument claimed that the breach was "of absolutely no relevance". Yes, the word "meaningful" wasn't used, but I dare you to provide a definition of the word "meaningful". >The argument isn't that it isn't meaningful, it's that it shouldn't be. Can you point me to someone making that argument?
    - icebraining 11y ago
      I'd say the part where vezzy-fnord talks about the couple's "prerogative" and "things that are none of your concern" set the context in terms of moral rights, not whether it can possible affect the other person. I can see where one might read it differently, though, but I confess I fail to see the point in discussing from that POV.
      - jsprogrammer 11y ago
        Eh, there's very little here that has much point in discussion. I only wanted to point out that this particular sub-thread was going off the rails (as many are, but I can't respond to all of them due to time constraints and HN's hard rate limit). The information can't be destroyed now, so there is little point in discussions about what should or shouldn't have happened in this specific instance. If someone breached a contract and this provides evidence to those ends, then it's simply a fact. I completely understand that facts can upset people. If someone didn't breach a contract...well I'm not sure what the worry is in this specific instance. In any case, it obviously sucks when information you gave in trust is leaked out and there is certainly a lesson to learn in data security here. There also seems to be a lesson to perhaps not trust companies who apparently fundamentally produce and specifically market a trust violation product. Of course, if you are in the market for such a product, formal calculation of your preference function may not be a priority. >I'd say the part where vezzy-fnord talks about the couple's "prerogative" and "things that are none of your concern" set the context in terms of moral rights, not whether it can possible affect the other person. This makes it sounds like vezzy-fnord is arguing for some kind of thought control regime; a regime where one may selectively engineer the exact perception to create in others. If someone can perceive something, they should be able to contemplate it. Just as it is a couple's prerogative to seek court mediation for their breached contracts (this is the right the argument afforded the couple), it is another's prerogative to act on information that is known to them.
humanrebar 11y ago
I'm aware of those people. I'll formally apologize in a twitter post if a significant portion of the AM clients were in open marriages. > They think honesty is more important. Yeah, that's a false dichotomy. And are monogamous marriages dishonest? That's oddly judgmental for an appeal for open-mindedness. Or you meant something else by "honesty", like realistic?. I guess that's slightly less judgy. A lot of these philosophical arguments get bogged down in boring bickering about word definitions. Marriage, traditionally, has implied "monogamous". At least "adultery" and "cheating" do.
monochromatic 11y ago
> significant chunk of happily married people who don't think monogamy is for them There's a significant chunk that is ok with cheating. There's a far smaller chunk that's ok with the other person cheating.

oldmanjay 11y ago

If your philosophy involves your opinions mattering in people's private concerns, no, it's not valid.

humanrebar 11y ago
No. I think marriages actually affect people not involved in the marriage commitment itself. Especially when you consider populations and not just hypothetical individuals.
- Absentinsomniac 11y ago
  Yeah, but what does that have to do with random unassociated outside observers? Are you saying society at large has some kind of right to intimate details of personal relationships?
  - humanrebar 11y ago
    I'm saying it's impossible, especially across large populations, to assert that infidelity is wholly a private matter. It's a compelling notion that doesn't stand up to facts. Be sure to consider things like STD rates, unplanned pregnancy rates, rates of single parenthood, divorces resulting from infidelity, and so on. I can assert that this data breach is immoral while also asserting that infidelity, especially organized infidelity, is not simply an intimate detail. I'm not sure why everyone feels compelled to square off into two camps on every issue.