5 ms·

For the life of me I would think that this should be illegal somehow.

Sebb767 6y ago
Why? As far as I can see, they don't force anything on anyone. One could also make the argument that if a partner falls for this (or hires them), the relationship is already on rocky ground, so they don't do much harm either.
- king07828 6y ago
  One can argue that the conduct is detrimental to the victim's interests and that the conduct constitutes common law fraud [1] because (1) the saboteur tells the victim "I like you", (2) the saboteur knows this is false or reckless, (3) the saboteur intends for the victim to leave the victim's current relationship, and (4) the victim left his or her current relationship. I am not your lawyer. This is not legal advice. If your partner is actively sabotaging your relationship, it may not be a good idea to stay with that person. [1] in Texas: In order to prove fraud, a plaintiff must show that (1) the defendant made a material representation that was false, (2) the defendant knew the representation was false or made it recklessly as a positive assertion without any knowledge of its truth, (3) the defendant intended to induce the plaintiff to act upon the representation, and (4) the plaintiff actually and justifiably relied on the representation, which caused the injury. Ernst & Young, L.L.P. v. Pac. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 51 S.W.3d 573, 577 (Tex. 2001).
  - Sebb767 6y ago
    I'd compare it more to the law of entrapment: You need to show that you did the action because it was an officer convincing you; the fact that you were convinced/talked into doing something is not enough. Which seems parallel to our case: The spouse in question was open to cheating; the fact that it was a detective (or fraudster) on the other side seems irrelevant. But I see your point, it feels fraudulent since you prove one side is bad by doing something (possibly) equally as bad, but only one thing is regarded in court. Though it will probably look bad if it's found out. > I am not your lawyer. This is not legal advice. Me neither, but I think it's an interesting topic. > If your partner is actively sabotaging your relationship, it may not be a good idea to stay with that person. Of course. But that was the point all along, I guess ;)
- stale2002 6y ago
  I'd say that it falls under issues of targeted harassment. It is already illegal, for example, to engage in long term stalking/harassment. And the actions of these people feel to be very similar.
golergka 6y ago
I don't. These things are sad and immoral, on that we agree. However, government and legality should not be arbiters of human morality; it's a huge and inefficient and stupid mechanism that should only be used to solved issues that absolutely cannot be solved without it and it's monopoly on violence. This kind of thing is better solved by society itself, and, judging by slowly, but steadily improving social norms, declining violence and improving human rights all around the globe, it is.
- sukilot 6y ago
  > government and legality should not be arbiters of human morality Then what is the point of having government and legality at all?
  - balfirevic 6y ago
    > should only be used to solved issues that absolutely cannot be solved without it and it's monopoly on violence
- appleiigs 6y ago
  You guys can split the difference. Regulate and tax it. In the article is says: "There might be wakaresaseya agents operating without licences and in the shadows", implying it's regulated. Maybe you have to pass an exam to be an wakaresaseya!
cerberusss 6y ago
On one hand, I agree because it seems there's a host of very deceptive things going on. But I see some positive things as well, from the article: "assistance with romantic reconciliation", "preventing revenge porn", "help a wronged spouse collect consolation money" and "obtain evidence of adultery".
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

Why? As far as I can see, they don't force anything on anyone. One could also make the argument that if a partner falls for this (or hires them), the relationship is already on rocky ground, so they don't do much harm either.

king07828 6y ago
One can argue that the conduct is detrimental to the victim's interests and that the conduct constitutes common law fraud [1] because (1) the saboteur tells the victim "I like you", (2) the saboteur knows this is false or reckless, (3) the saboteur intends for the victim to leave the victim's current relationship, and (4) the victim left his or her current relationship. I am not your lawyer. This is not legal advice. If your partner is actively sabotaging your relationship, it may not be a good idea to stay with that person. [1] in Texas: In order to prove fraud, a plaintiff must show that (1) the defendant made a material representation that was false, (2) the defendant knew the representation was false or made it recklessly as a positive assertion without any knowledge of its truth, (3) the defendant intended to induce the plaintiff to act upon the representation, and (4) the plaintiff actually and justifiably relied on the representation, which caused the injury. Ernst & Young, L.L.P. v. Pac. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 51 S.W.3d 573, 577 (Tex. 2001).
- Sebb767 6y ago
  I'd compare it more to the law of entrapment: You need to show that you did the action because it was an officer convincing you; the fact that you were convinced/talked into doing something is not enough. Which seems parallel to our case: The spouse in question was open to cheating; the fact that it was a detective (or fraudster) on the other side seems irrelevant. But I see your point, it feels fraudulent since you prove one side is bad by doing something (possibly) equally as bad, but only one thing is regarded in court. Though it will probably look bad if it's found out. > I am not your lawyer. This is not legal advice. Me neither, but I think it's an interesting topic. > If your partner is actively sabotaging your relationship, it may not be a good idea to stay with that person. Of course. But that was the point all along, I guess ;)
stale2002 6y ago
I'd say that it falls under issues of targeted harassment. It is already illegal, for example, to engage in long term stalking/harassment. And the actions of these people feel to be very similar.

golergka 6y ago

I don't. These things are sad and immoral, on that we agree. However, government and legality should not be arbiters of human morality; it's a huge and inefficient and stupid mechanism that should only be used to solved issues that absolutely cannot be solved without it and it's monopoly on violence. This kind of thing is better solved by society itself, and, judging by slowly, but steadily improving social norms, declining violence and improving human rights all around the globe, it is.

sukilot 6y ago
> government and legality should not be arbiters of human morality Then what is the point of having government and legality at all?
- balfirevic 6y ago
  > should only be used to solved issues that absolutely cannot be solved without it and it's monopoly on violence
appleiigs 6y ago
You guys can split the difference. Regulate and tax it. In the article is says: "There might be wakaresaseya agents operating without licences and in the shadows", implying it's regulated. Maybe you have to pass an exam to be an wakaresaseya!

cerberusss 6y ago

On one hand, I agree because it seems there's a host of very deceptive things going on. But I see some positive things as well, from the article: "assistance with romantic reconciliation", "preventing revenge porn", "help a wronged spouse collect consolation money" and "obtain evidence of adultery".

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]