8 ms·

Typical. Free speech! (Until I hear something I don't like!) Equal rights! (Except for people that are not like me!)

jaawn 11y ago
I don't think this argument really applies. It would be one thing if the site was devoted to assisting "open relationships," but it isn't. It is specifically a service to assist people in "cheating" on their partners (with the assumption being that the partners don't know and wouldn't approve). So, because of this specific detail, I don't think the "people not like me should be treated equally!" argument applies. The betrayal is intrinsic, not a matter of opinion.
- harlanlewis 11y ago
  Judging other people's relationships is a losing game, no matter how objectively you label qualifiers. Few things are more opaque than the unspoken space between other minds, with their unique mix of shared + independent history, context, hopes, doubts, violence, love. But hey, good luck drawing lines where you choose.
  - ArtDev 11y ago
    The sites sole purpose is inherently harmful. The ads speak for themselves: https://www.google.com/search?q=ashlymadison+ads https://www.google.com/search?q=ashlymadison+ads
    - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
      Inherently harmful to whom? PS Those ads are awful.
    - vectorjohn 11y ago
      This is not a factual statement. It's your opinion. It isn't up to you to decide this for other people.
      - jaawn 11y ago
        Its intent is to do something which harms. I don't think the infinitesimal collection of people who want their partners to "cheat" on them justify the flexibility you're implying. Basically, what you are saying, is that some people are not harmed by being cheated on, and therefore it isn't fair for us to judge the actions of the sites users, because maybe all or most of them are in a situation where there is no harm. I think the simpler explanation (and likely more accurate one) is that in most cases, each AM user has at least one partner which is being harmed by the user's actions and use of the site. Being accepting and tolerant of different types of relationships and desires is a separate issue. The site was created for, and is marketed towards, people who want to cheat (in the traditional, harmful sense) on their current partners.
        vectorjohn 11y ago
        First, you're putting words in my mouth. All I did was point out that you're just spouting opinions as given facts. Secondly, still, you continue to make value judgments based on your own personal ethics and assume they're universal truths. Whether there is harm (as you say) truly is debatable. Ending a marriage is breaking your contract, doing something your spouse doesn't like is "harmful". Which ones are ok? Maybe this cheating for many people ends up being a one time thing that the person needed to do to either realize they want to end the marriage or realize they want to change something. Or some other outcome. Regardless, it isn't your or anyone else's job to decide, so please keep your moralizing to yourself.
        jaawn 11y ago
        As I've been trying to explain, the issue is with the secrecy and broken promise/contract because it puts one person's interests ahead of the other. If you disagree with that kind of relationship, that is fine...don't agree to enter into one. If you are in one and you find it is no longer what you want, that is fine too...tell your partner and proceed how you wish. I am not applying any overly austere morals here. I think you would be hard-pressed to successfully argue that an affair in the traditional sense is not an immoral act. If you promise to be "faithful" to someone, and you break that promise and try to hide it, it is immoral based on most people's morals and understanding. Sure, you might disagree with popular morals, that's fine. However, a relationship involves two people, and both should be valued equally. If one person thinks it is fine to break their promise and cheat in secret, so they do it despite knowing how the other person feels...they are putting themselves first. They are not treating both they and their partner as equals. That is the issue. It has nothing to do with some sort of ideological anti-affair "beliefs." It is simple respect. I guess it is even technically "fine" to think you deserve more liberty than others, or that you think others' feelings don't matter as much as your desires (I'm not saying you do, I'm speaking generally). If that is the case, just own up to it and people can choose how to react accordingly. If you find partners that align with your views, great, everyone is on the same page, but if not, people deserve the truth. Everything else is up in the air, but they deserve to know. Keeping it from them is like robbing them of the choice to deal with it or leave.
unprepare 11y ago
Typical. Free Speech! (has nothing to do with government censorship or banning of speech of any kind) Equal rights! (has nothing to do with people being granted rights equally by the government, or those rights being applied unevenly) Is someone here promoting censorship or banning of a type of speech? Is someone of Class B being persecuted for a crime Class A would not be persecuted for? If the answer to both questions is no, then we are not discussing free speech or equal rights. Having a lack of sympathy for someone who committed a crime (in this case a contract violation) is neither anti-free speech nor anti-equal rights. Do you think it would be better for us to feel more empathy for contract breakers than for those whose marriages have been adversely affected?
- jasonlotito 11y ago
  Oh, I can play "snarky HN comment" too! Ahem... Typical. Privacy! (until people I disagree with have their privacy taken). The Free Speech/Equal Rights remarks weren't about this case. The GP's comment was alluding to them and comparing them to Privacy, which was what was being discussed. Your remarks about Free Speech and Equal Rights are pointless and immaterial. > Having a lack of sympathy for someone who committed a crime (in this case a contract violation) Just curious, what crime did they commit in signing up for AM? What proof do you have that they did sign up? What proof do you have that the released data will be accurate? What contract did they violate by signing up for AM? I'm curious to know what proof you have besides assumptions to make a bold statement that anyone mentioned in the released data is immediately guilty of something. > Do you think it would be better for us to feel more empathy for contract breakers than for those whose marriages have been adversely affected? Do you think it would be better for us to find people guilty until proven innocent, or innocent until proven guilty?
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>Free speech! (Until I hear something I don't like!) What limitations do you think should be put on the exchange of information (words, thoughts, concepts, pictures, videos, executable, etc.). For almost everyone I've ever asked, the answer was never 'none'. They may start there, but soon after I started listing more concrete examples I find one that makes them take back that 'none'.
- dublinben 11y ago
  You didn't ask me, but the correct answer is 'none.'
  - eropple 11y ago
    Cool, so it's alright for me to air your dirtiest of laundry? I'll remember that.
    - dublinben 11y ago
      Even if I took umbrage to that, how is censorship legislation going to stop you?
    - vectorjohn 11y ago
      It is perfectly legal, yes. You still are an asshole if you do it.
  - Retra 11y ago
    You realize that you are advocating for single-point-of-failure, right? That if I learn anything at all about you, that I should be free to share it with whomever I like in any way I want, and for any reason? Do you honestly believe that you are so good at guarding information that you have nothing to fear from it's free propagation? And that this is not only true for you, but for everyone?
    - dublinben 11y ago
      Would censorship legislation prevent you from doing so, if you really wanted to? We should spend more effort removing the potential harm that unwanted information disclosure can cause, rather than running around plugging leaks and jailing whistleblowers.

jaawn 11y ago

I don't think this argument really applies. It would be one thing if the site was devoted to assisting "open relationships," but it isn't. It is specifically a service to assist people in "cheating" on their partners (with the assumption being that the partners don't know and wouldn't approve). So, because of this specific detail, I don't think the "people not like me should be treated equally!" argument applies. The betrayal is intrinsic, not a matter of opinion.

harlanlewis 11y ago
Judging other people's relationships is a losing game, no matter how objectively you label qualifiers. Few things are more opaque than the unspoken space between other minds, with their unique mix of shared + independent history, context, hopes, doubts, violence, love. But hey, good luck drawing lines where you choose.
- ArtDev 11y ago
  The sites sole purpose is inherently harmful. The ads speak for themselves: https://www.google.com/search?q=ashlymadison+ads https://www.google.com/search?q=ashlymadison+ads
  - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
    Inherently harmful to whom? PS Those ads are awful.
  - vectorjohn 11y ago
    This is not a factual statement. It's your opinion. It isn't up to you to decide this for other people.
    - jaawn 11y ago
      Its intent is to do something which harms. I don't think the infinitesimal collection of people who want their partners to "cheat" on them justify the flexibility you're implying. Basically, what you are saying, is that some people are not harmed by being cheated on, and therefore it isn't fair for us to judge the actions of the sites users, because maybe all or most of them are in a situation where there is no harm. I think the simpler explanation (and likely more accurate one) is that in most cases, each AM user has at least one partner which is being harmed by the user's actions and use of the site. Being accepting and tolerant of different types of relationships and desires is a separate issue. The site was created for, and is marketed towards, people who want to cheat (in the traditional, harmful sense) on their current partners.
      - vectorjohn 11y ago
        First, you're putting words in my mouth. All I did was point out that you're just spouting opinions as given facts. Secondly, still, you continue to make value judgments based on your own personal ethics and assume they're universal truths. Whether there is harm (as you say) truly is debatable. Ending a marriage is breaking your contract, doing something your spouse doesn't like is "harmful". Which ones are ok? Maybe this cheating for many people ends up being a one time thing that the person needed to do to either realize they want to end the marriage or realize they want to change something. Or some other outcome. Regardless, it isn't your or anyone else's job to decide, so please keep your moralizing to yourself.
        jaawn 11y ago
        As I've been trying to explain, the issue is with the secrecy and broken promise/contract because it puts one person's interests ahead of the other. If you disagree with that kind of relationship, that is fine...don't agree to enter into one. If you are in one and you find it is no longer what you want, that is fine too...tell your partner and proceed how you wish. I am not applying any overly austere morals here. I think you would be hard-pressed to successfully argue that an affair in the traditional sense is not an immoral act. If you promise to be "faithful" to someone, and you break that promise and try to hide it, it is immoral based on most people's morals and understanding. Sure, you might disagree with popular morals, that's fine. However, a relationship involves two people, and both should be valued equally. If one person thinks it is fine to break their promise and cheat in secret, so they do it despite knowing how the other person feels...they are putting themselves first. They are not treating both they and their partner as equals. That is the issue. It has nothing to do with some sort of ideological anti-affair "beliefs." It is simple respect. I guess it is even technically "fine" to think you deserve more liberty than others, or that you think others' feelings don't matter as much as your desires (I'm not saying you do, I'm speaking generally). If that is the case, just own up to it and people can choose how to react accordingly. If you find partners that align with your views, great, everyone is on the same page, but if not, people deserve the truth. Everything else is up in the air, but they deserve to know. Keeping it from them is like robbing them of the choice to deal with it or leave.

unprepare 11y ago

Typical. Free Speech! (has nothing to do with government censorship or banning of speech of any kind) Equal rights! (has nothing to do with people being granted rights equally by the government, or those rights being applied unevenly) Is someone here promoting censorship or banning of a type of speech? Is someone of Class B being persecuted for a crime Class A would not be persecuted for? If the answer to both questions is no, then we are not discussing free speech or equal rights. Having a lack of sympathy for someone who committed a crime (in this case a contract violation) is neither anti-free speech nor anti-equal rights. Do you think it would be better for us to feel more empathy for contract breakers than for those whose marriages have been adversely affected?

jasonlotito 11y ago
Oh, I can play "snarky HN comment" too! Ahem... Typical. Privacy! (until people I disagree with have their privacy taken). The Free Speech/Equal Rights remarks weren't about this case. The GP's comment was alluding to them and comparing them to Privacy, which was what was being discussed. Your remarks about Free Speech and Equal Rights are pointless and immaterial. > Having a lack of sympathy for someone who committed a crime (in this case a contract violation) Just curious, what crime did they commit in signing up for AM? What proof do you have that they did sign up? What proof do you have that the released data will be accurate? What contract did they violate by signing up for AM? I'm curious to know what proof you have besides assumptions to make a bold statement that anyone mentioned in the released data is immediately guilty of something. > Do you think it would be better for us to feel more empathy for contract breakers than for those whose marriages have been adversely affected? Do you think it would be better for us to find people guilty until proven innocent, or innocent until proven guilty?

Lawtonfogle 11y ago

>Free speech! (Until I hear something I don't like!) What limitations do you think should be put on the exchange of information (words, thoughts, concepts, pictures, videos, executable, etc.). For almost everyone I've ever asked, the answer was never 'none'. They may start there, but soon after I started listing more concrete examples I find one that makes them take back that 'none'.

dublinben 11y ago
You didn't ask me, but the correct answer is 'none.'
- eropple 11y ago
  Cool, so it's alright for me to air your dirtiest of laundry? I'll remember that.
  - dublinben 11y ago
    Even if I took umbrage to that, how is censorship legislation going to stop you?
  - vectorjohn 11y ago
    It is perfectly legal, yes. You still are an asshole if you do it.
- Retra 11y ago
  You realize that you are advocating for single-point-of-failure, right? That if I learn anything at all about you, that I should be free to share it with whomever I like in any way I want, and for any reason? Do you honestly believe that you are so good at guarding information that you have nothing to fear from it's free propagation? And that this is not only true for you, but for everyone?
  - dublinben 11y ago
    Would censorship legislation prevent you from doing so, if you really wanted to? We should spend more effort removing the potential harm that unwanted information disclosure can cause, rather than running around plugging leaks and jailing whistleblowers.