4 ms·

I don't think cheetos are ok, yet I don't think it should be illegal for a company to sell them. I think it's immoral to advertise vaguely about health benefits

I don't think cheetos are ok, yet I don't think it should be illegal for a company to sell them. I think it's immoral to advertise vaguely about health benefits (see how many vitamins and minerals are in Lucky Charms!) when researchers can unequivocally point to your product as directly harmful to health. I'm still not against a company's right to sell Lucky Charms. My morality doesn't belong in the laws and neither does yours. The entire history of human civilization is littered with horrible event after horrible event based in the name of someone's twisted ideas. AM created a (seemingly shitty) a place for two consenting adults to find each other and meet. That Bob or Alice are married shouldn't matter one iota, it was their informed choice. This is even better in my opinion than having a standard dating site where one party is expecting a traditional relationship only to eventually be hurt by the fact the other person was stepping out on their partner and not really interested. Cheating isn't okay with me either, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to legislate against it. Are we going to force people to start wearing scarlet letters?

jazoom 9y ago
You said what I was thinking but in a smarter way.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
JoeAltmaier 9y ago
There's more to it than that. Apparently AM faked female contact info millions of times, and tried to charge for more contact with the fake accounts. Simple fraud. So not only a website that allowed immoral (in some views) activity. Actually an immoral website that perpetrated fraud and extortion.
- manyxcxi 9y ago
  That was my aside about them seeming to be shitty. I think AM was a scummy company enabling people to do something I don't agree with. I'd be more than happy if they got the hammer for fraud or something, but purely for enabling immorality, hell no.
  - Chris2048 9y ago
    I don't understand your distinction "purely for enabling immorality" versus "fraud or something". If I enable, or otherwise assist with a crime, that is a crime. Crime is an immoral act distinguished by government policing. any immoral act, or being an accessory of one, is a crime just the same as fraud as soon as you decide to police it.
    - jazoom 9y ago
      It sounds like you have a religious objection to adultery.
      - Chris2048 9y ago
        Why? Because you have to be religious to be care about morality? I'm an atheist; you don't have to believe in god to believe a human that commits to another should honor that commitment.
Chris2048 9y ago
> I think it's immoral to advertise vaguely about health benefits But there are already laws curbing this behavior (misleading health claims), and they still need to provide accurate nutritional data (how much sugar is in them), in the EU at least. misleading product marketing isn't quite the same as a service encouraging or protecting immoral behavior. > My morality doesn't belong in the laws and neither does yours Maybe it does, all laws follow from some morality. Maybe if you argue your point, yours should too? You don't really explain why you think your morality shouldn't be law. > That Bob or Alice are married shouldn't matter one iota, it was their informed choice AM marketed specifically to the married, and created a service with an air of secrecy on that basis. Should I be allowed to create a convert marketplace for people to fence stolen goods, so long as participants give informed consent? That's not at all the issue. > This is even better in my opinion than having a standard dating site The premise of AM would make it potentially less risky for a cheater - there wouldn't be a common incentive for the other person to expose the cheater if they found out. > Are we going to force people to start wearing scarlet letters? That's a straw-man. It's hard to legislate something, therefore allow even explicit forms of it? cheating is hard to legislate, but services explicitly catering to it can.

jazoom 9y ago

You said what I was thinking but in a smarter way.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

JoeAltmaier 9y ago

There's more to it than that. Apparently AM faked female contact info millions of times, and tried to charge for more contact with the fake accounts. Simple fraud. So not only a website that allowed immoral (in some views) activity. Actually an immoral website that perpetrated fraud and extortion.

manyxcxi 9y ago
That was my aside about them seeming to be shitty. I think AM was a scummy company enabling people to do something I don't agree with. I'd be more than happy if they got the hammer for fraud or something, but purely for enabling immorality, hell no.
- Chris2048 9y ago
  I don't understand your distinction "purely for enabling immorality" versus "fraud or something". If I enable, or otherwise assist with a crime, that is a crime. Crime is an immoral act distinguished by government policing. any immoral act, or being an accessory of one, is a crime just the same as fraud as soon as you decide to police it.
  - jazoom 9y ago
    It sounds like you have a religious objection to adultery.
    - Chris2048 9y ago
      Why? Because you have to be religious to be care about morality? I'm an atheist; you don't have to believe in god to believe a human that commits to another should honor that commitment.

Chris2048 9y ago

> I think it's immoral to advertise vaguely about health benefits But there are already laws curbing this behavior (misleading health claims), and they still need to provide accurate nutritional data (how much sugar is in them), in the EU at least. misleading product marketing isn't quite the same as a service encouraging or protecting immoral behavior. > My morality doesn't belong in the laws and neither does yours Maybe it does, all laws follow from some morality. Maybe if you argue your point, yours should too? You don't really explain why you think your morality shouldn't be law. > That Bob or Alice are married shouldn't matter one iota, it was their informed choice AM marketed specifically to the married, and created a service with an air of secrecy on that basis. Should I be allowed to create a convert marketplace for people to fence stolen goods, so long as participants give informed consent? That's not at all the issue. > This is even better in my opinion than having a standard dating site The premise of AM would make it potentially less risky for a cheater - there wouldn't be a common incentive for the other person to expose the cheater if they found out. > Are we going to force people to start wearing scarlet letters? That's a straw-man. It's hard to legislate something, therefore allow even explicit forms of it? cheating is hard to legislate, but services explicitly catering to it can.