5 ms·

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

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.

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.