3 ms·

Okay? Maybe not. Illegal? What's the point of that?

• Chris2048 9y ago
  The same point as anything, to defend individual rights and improve society. AM exploited the weakness of the people using its service. And in the context of a guy who killed himself rather than face the shame of having betrayed his wife?
  • jazoom 9y ago
    It sounds like the effort should go towards changing people's attitudes instead of regulating what business can do.
    • Chris2048 9y ago
      You could say that about any corporate legislation. There's nothing stopping you from doing both. Any effort to change attitudes will be more successful if it doesn't have to compete with corporate marketing; for example, it's easier to get people to reject tobacco, if they aren't constantly exposed to marketing making it seem cool, harmless, healthy(!?) and/or normal. Coke adds normalize casually drinking caffeinated sugar water. McDonalds even had athletes eating their burgers. There are some people who will always cheat, making it easier to hide it from their partner is the best you can do.
      • jazoom 9y ago
        I mean change attitudes about sex. What law of the universe says people should have sex with only one person? It's not cheating if it's accepted. I think AM is a scummy company but they are only accommodating what people already want to do.
        • Chris2048 9y ago
          > It's not cheating if it's accepted True, which means this is a tangent. For those who do commit, they shouldn't cheat. I'm not going to go into reasons for monogamy, but "what people already want to do" is cheat. Should there be no insider trading laws either? Clearly crooked traders want to cheat, so why not let them?
          • jazoom 9y ago
            No one loses anything in this case. In fact, if the couple is okay with it, you could consider it a gain. Your analogy isn't even close. By the way, I mean no disrespect. My way of thinking used to be more similar to yours.
            • Chris2048 9y ago
              No problem, but I'm not sure I follow. What is this case? We're talking about cheating, but that is specifically cheating on a commitment. A couple who are happy with an open relationship are not cheating. There are already dating sites for swingers etc, AM is not one of them, AM if specifically for cheaters. They act against the interests of the cheated-upon. This is why I made the analogy; a inside trader might be OK with it because they see the gain, but not the loss.
              • jazoom 9y ago
                You are right. AM does seem specifically for sneaky commitment-breaking, which is one reason I think they are scummy. I also believe it bad to cheat on a commitment. I suppose I lost my point, which was this shouldn't be illegal. Not all scumminess should be illegal since you will end up making criminals out of decent people who do a scummy thing. Road rage is bad but if everyone who succumbs to it was a criminal then half the country would have a criminal record. A better solution would be a culture change where this commitment isn't strongly pushed onto people from social pressure when it's obviously not the right thing for that person. Another better solution would be reducing social stigma around divorce.