7 ms·

Lots of people who use the site may be "innocent" (because they didn't actually do anything, or because they're in an open marriage or whatever). And even peop

Lots of people who use the site may be "innocent" (because they didn't actually do anything, or because they're in an open marriage or whatever). And even people who are to one degree or other "guilty" are not as a class to be declared guilty and given all the same punishment. That said, while I can't necessarily judge any given user of the site, I'm pretty confident that the people running the site are contributing to net misery in the world. And certainly I think that it would fall within the realm of justice for them to be (at least!) forced to turn the site off. But I don't think that's the most likely outcome.

unchocked 11y ago
I don't see how enabling affairs contributes to the net misery of the world. A civilized society ought to move away from your sort of moralizing judgement about relations between consenting adults, or those who facilitate them. Adults are free to fuck: they are happier for doing it.
- aetherson 11y ago
  Whatever you think that a civilized society "ought" to move away from, then fact of the matter is that the rest of society doesn't agree with you. And, in fact, married people are (typically) not "free to fuck," and when they do fuck extramaritally, they are (typically) not happier for doing it, and their spouses are (even more typically) not happier for them doing it. This is a descriptive statement, not a prescriptive one.
  - stdgy 11y ago
    Is there significant evidence that people who engage in affairs are more likely to be unhappy than happy after having engaged in them? I don't doubt the claim, but evidence would be appreciated.
  - bmelton 11y ago
    "the rest of society doesn't agree with you" And that is a very poor benchmark for establishing one's own morals. Let's not forget that until very recently, "the rest of society" didn't agree that homosexuals should be allowed to marry. In the not too distant past, the "rest of society" didn't agree that women should be allowed to vote, that interracial couples should be allowed to marry, and that blacks weren't considered whole people. In determining the validity of one's vitriol towards another people, there are far better metrics for determining the extent than whether or not the "rest of society" agrees with me. I, personally, am not comfortable with our society's complete ban on polygamy. Even though "the rest of society" seems perfectly fine to impose their morality upon the polygamists, I am uncomfortable joining in.
    - aetherson 11y ago
      The only moral principal I have articulated is that I do not think that people should do things which clearly on net add misery to the world. Let's be super clear about this: are you saying that's a bad moral principal? I have also made descriptive statements about what cheating actually does in the real world versus the people who say, "This site is cool because everyone should be in an open marriage." Which, you know, I doubt the site even agrees with. It looks like it competes based on the illicit nature of its services. It charges you money to delete your profile, guys! And then, the hackers assert, doesn't actually delete your profile. I think that polygamy should be legal. But this is not a polygamist's website. It's a cheater's website. The logo is of someone making the "shhh" gesture! And all the "but I think everyone should be polygamists" in the world is: 1. Not actually going to happen. 2. Ignoring the actual pain of people who very much did not sign up for or want their spouses to cheat, in service of some silly untenable goal.
      - bmelton 11y ago
        "The only moral principal I have articulated is that I do not think that people should do things which clearly on net add misery to the world. Let's be super clear about this: are you saying that's a bad moral principal?" You do whatever you like, but it's worth noting that not everybody's definition of net misery is the same as yours, and to many, discreet encounters run the gamut anywhere from morally fine to morally evil, no matter how far adrift your own moral compass is from the median. There are people using the site in ways for which I'm sure you'd approve, just as there are undoubtedly people using the site in ways for which I'm sure you wouldn't. That said, that's all irrelevant, as my only point is that getting people to agree with you isn't the high water mark for correctness. Otherwise smart people routinely agree on really dumb things, and referencing my earlier post, I'm sure that there are plenty of people who disapprove of gay marriage who would be able to put their views into similarly noble phrasings. Also, I did not assert that everyone should be in an open marriage, or involved in polygamy. I don't care what kind of marriage you're in, or anybody else. I just don't think that "society says so" is a valid reason for allowing or disallowing other people from getting married. That same logic was being used to discriminate against interracial and gay marriages, and is currently being used to discriminate against polygamy and polyamorous marriages. None of those marriages take anything away from mine, so whatever I might personally think of people I cannot identify with, their right to marriage is no business of mine.
  - vectorjohn 11y ago
    It's an evidenceless statement, full of self righteous judgmental undertones. "civilized society" is not disney cartoons and soap operas. There is no reason to add anything to the statement that adults are free to handle their relationships as they choose. No need to add a "but I think they're wrong to do it".
    - malka 11y ago
      It is usually seen 'wrong' to unilateraly and sneakily violates the terms of a contract.
- KingMob 11y ago
  But people in open relationships have no need to use a site based on cheating. They just use OkCupid, which is fairly poly-friendly. Despite what you said, Ashley Madison doesn't facilitate relations between "consenting" adults, because in an affair, 1 or 2 people didn't consent: the spouses being cheated on.
  - unchocked 11y ago
    Ashley Madison facilitated relations between consenting adults. Full stop. The jilted spouses had nothing to do with it. The jilted spouses weren't involved in the sex. Betrayal only occurred within a personal relationship, and the resolution of betrayal can only be handled within that relationship. For an Internet vigilante mob to throw what is entirely a private matter into a public light is irresponsible in the extreme, and tangentially is probably harmful to the spouses being cheated on as well.
    - Nadya 11y ago
      >Betrayal only occurred within a personal relationship I'm not sure about you, but I wouldn't test my luck with expecting a previously unfaithful partner to suddenly be faithful with me if they have a track record of unfaithfulness. I have more personal value in knowing if someone is unfaithful than if they are an RSO - and yet being an RSO is made public knowledge.
      - unchocked 11y ago
        Not at all sure what you're saying here, nor what RSO means to you.
    - KingMob 11y ago
      > Ashley Madison facilitated relations between consenting adults. Unless all parties involved (spouses included) consented, this is partially false. Full stop. > The jilted spouses had nothing to do with it. The jilted spouses were betrayed, even if unaware and not "involved" in the sex. Full stop. Even in cases where cheating is remotely justified, an honest conversation beats sneaking around.
kordless 11y ago
Having a global objective of reducing suffering sounds great, in theory. Solving the problem of obtaining clean water in drought stricken areas with new technology is a great example of something 'we' can do to help reduce suffering. It remains that people still have to chose to drink water from a newfangled device. Deciding a service people chose to use is causing increased suffering is a great example of something that isn't our problem to solve. They chose that path for themselves and their partners chose the path to be with someone who made those choices. It's not on you, or me, or anyone else to reduce their suffering. That said, people choosing to use a centralized shared store of information for their sensitive data can quickly put them in cognitive dissonance when combining the expectations that the provider will keep their data safe and secure with the desire to achieve the results promised by said site. The real reason we should be satisfied that AM got hacked was not because affairs are immoral. It's that AM was entrusted with sensitive data about it's users that it failed to protect. If a company stores someone's sensitive data in a centralized way with their software, and fails to protect it, they are just as bad as AM. Edit: Added some thoughts and removed a blaming statement.
- aetherson 11y ago
  What is the line you draw between a service dedicated to enabling affairs, and a service dedicated to enabling, say, emotional spousal abuse? Or physical spousal abuse? Because, those people chose that path for themselves and their partners chose the path to be with someone who made those choices, right? I'm pretty libertarian. I'll basically stand by the right of anyone to do something that makes themselves desperately unhappy because they're adults and can make their own choices. I don't think it should be illegal to cheat on your spouse, and if people want to marry people who are clearly making them unhappy -- even hurting them -- then the most I'll do is strongly suggest they reconsider their choices. But it's a whole different matter to set up a service dedicated to profiting from enabling behavior that's making other people miserable. That's shitty. It shouldn't be illegal, its users should still have privacy, but I'll shed no tears if the proprietors of said service get forced to shut it down.
netcan 11y ago
Liberalism is an idea that has a lot of weight on this site. For some, it's libertarian kind of liberalism where people should be left to make their won economic decisions. For others its the social liberalism kind where people should be allowed to decide for themselves what is a valid marriage, or what drugs they will or won't put in their bodies. Most flavors of liberalism have at their heart the idea that "The State" is neither competent nor qualified to intervene in everything or make all decisions on behalf of its citizens. The State is usually the belligerent, but you could equally say "society" or a body like a twitter mob or a hacker group. We don't need to collectively decide whether or not this site should exist. People should make their own choices. There are a lot of things I think people shouldn't do and other people that help them do that. I don't think people should join churches. But, the only way I want to see churches close down is when people no longer choose to be members. This is a freedom issue, like speech. You don't look inside to make your judgement. There is a right and a wrong here. The wrong is not the site.
- TimJRobinson 11y ago
  Your style of marriage, your religion and what drugs you take are all victimless crimes. Cheating on your spouse definitely has a victim which is why it's much more of an issue than the others you've listed. Most liberals are not anti state, but pro freedom as long as it doesn't affect anyone else's life.
  - Flimm 11y ago
    Style of marriage, religion, drugs and cheating all do affect other people's life, even harm, to varying degrees and definitions. There is no freedom that doesn't affect anyone else's life.
    - wutbrodo 11y ago
      Right, up to and including eating a slice of cheesecake, which is why your definition is useless. What we're discussing here is things that are harmful to others _per se_. Theft, violating agreements (like cheating), etc are obviously examples of this. Religion, drug use, open marriages are obviously not. The distinction here is kot
lectrick 11y ago
> I'm pretty confident that the people running the site are contributing to net misery in the world. To be perfectly, bluntly clear- There isn't actually any suffering (and in some cases, still almost none) until the secret gets out. By that definition (which to me is entirely obvious, but clearly not to others), OUTING all of these people is what will cause tremendous suffering. I don't agree with these blanket "everyone who does this is bad" statements. (I think there's a lot of people who have been cheated on out there and their latent scorn always comes out in these things. Rationality goes out the window when personal feelings are involved.) It's awfully judgmental and sandblasts out all the fine details. What of the man who wants to stay married to his invalid wife but still needs to "get off" at times, and neither wants to break her heart nor can he longer function rationally without? What of the good husband and father who is hiding his bi-ness and therefore takes a man now and then on the side? (What of the woman in the same position?) What of the member of the church demanding absolute celibacy who has invested his life into it but realizes he simply can't function without sexual human contact now and then? Do you seriously expect the amount of upheaval that would result from "outing everyone" to be LESS pain overall than the current situation?
- aetherson 11y ago
  I agree that outing these people will cause tremendous suffering. I'm not advocating for it. And I didn't make any blanket "everyone who does this is bad" statements -- in fact, I specifically disclaimed the opposite.
  - lectrick 11y ago
    And I'm not saying that these people didn't already set all the dominos up to fall themselves. I just wanted to make the point that if the dominos falling is painful, keeping them up in defiance of truth and gravity is not. > I didn't make any blanket "everyone who does this is bad" statements Yet you said that site's existence was a "net negative" for happiness in the world, which (unless I'm not being logical) implies that, on average, the actions of the people on that site are negative, i.e., "bad."
    - 11y ago

unchocked 11y ago

I don't see how enabling affairs contributes to the net misery of the world. A civilized society ought to move away from your sort of moralizing judgement about relations between consenting adults, or those who facilitate them. Adults are free to fuck: they are happier for doing it.

aetherson 11y ago
Whatever you think that a civilized society "ought" to move away from, then fact of the matter is that the rest of society doesn't agree with you. And, in fact, married people are (typically) not "free to fuck," and when they do fuck extramaritally, they are (typically) not happier for doing it, and their spouses are (even more typically) not happier for them doing it. This is a descriptive statement, not a prescriptive one.
- stdgy 11y ago
  Is there significant evidence that people who engage in affairs are more likely to be unhappy than happy after having engaged in them? I don't doubt the claim, but evidence would be appreciated.
- bmelton 11y ago
  "the rest of society doesn't agree with you" And that is a very poor benchmark for establishing one's own morals. Let's not forget that until very recently, "the rest of society" didn't agree that homosexuals should be allowed to marry. In the not too distant past, the "rest of society" didn't agree that women should be allowed to vote, that interracial couples should be allowed to marry, and that blacks weren't considered whole people. In determining the validity of one's vitriol towards another people, there are far better metrics for determining the extent than whether or not the "rest of society" agrees with me. I, personally, am not comfortable with our society's complete ban on polygamy. Even though "the rest of society" seems perfectly fine to impose their morality upon the polygamists, I am uncomfortable joining in.
  - aetherson 11y ago
    The only moral principal I have articulated is that I do not think that people should do things which clearly on net add misery to the world. Let's be super clear about this: are you saying that's a bad moral principal? I have also made descriptive statements about what cheating actually does in the real world versus the people who say, "This site is cool because everyone should be in an open marriage." Which, you know, I doubt the site even agrees with. It looks like it competes based on the illicit nature of its services. It charges you money to delete your profile, guys! And then, the hackers assert, doesn't actually delete your profile. I think that polygamy should be legal. But this is not a polygamist's website. It's a cheater's website. The logo is of someone making the "shhh" gesture! And all the "but I think everyone should be polygamists" in the world is: 1. Not actually going to happen. 2. Ignoring the actual pain of people who very much did not sign up for or want their spouses to cheat, in service of some silly untenable goal.
    - bmelton 11y ago
      "The only moral principal I have articulated is that I do not think that people should do things which clearly on net add misery to the world. Let's be super clear about this: are you saying that's a bad moral principal?" You do whatever you like, but it's worth noting that not everybody's definition of net misery is the same as yours, and to many, discreet encounters run the gamut anywhere from morally fine to morally evil, no matter how far adrift your own moral compass is from the median. There are people using the site in ways for which I'm sure you'd approve, just as there are undoubtedly people using the site in ways for which I'm sure you wouldn't. That said, that's all irrelevant, as my only point is that getting people to agree with you isn't the high water mark for correctness. Otherwise smart people routinely agree on really dumb things, and referencing my earlier post, I'm sure that there are plenty of people who disapprove of gay marriage who would be able to put their views into similarly noble phrasings. Also, I did not assert that everyone should be in an open marriage, or involved in polygamy. I don't care what kind of marriage you're in, or anybody else. I just don't think that "society says so" is a valid reason for allowing or disallowing other people from getting married. That same logic was being used to discriminate against interracial and gay marriages, and is currently being used to discriminate against polygamy and polyamorous marriages. None of those marriages take anything away from mine, so whatever I might personally think of people I cannot identify with, their right to marriage is no business of mine.
- vectorjohn 11y ago
  It's an evidenceless statement, full of self righteous judgmental undertones. "civilized society" is not disney cartoons and soap operas. There is no reason to add anything to the statement that adults are free to handle their relationships as they choose. No need to add a "but I think they're wrong to do it".
  - malka 11y ago
    It is usually seen 'wrong' to unilateraly and sneakily violates the terms of a contract.
KingMob 11y ago
But people in open relationships have no need to use a site based on cheating. They just use OkCupid, which is fairly poly-friendly. Despite what you said, Ashley Madison doesn't facilitate relations between "consenting" adults, because in an affair, 1 or 2 people didn't consent: the spouses being cheated on.
- unchocked 11y ago
  Ashley Madison facilitated relations between consenting adults. Full stop. The jilted spouses had nothing to do with it. The jilted spouses weren't involved in the sex. Betrayal only occurred within a personal relationship, and the resolution of betrayal can only be handled within that relationship. For an Internet vigilante mob to throw what is entirely a private matter into a public light is irresponsible in the extreme, and tangentially is probably harmful to the spouses being cheated on as well.
  - Nadya 11y ago
    >Betrayal only occurred within a personal relationship I'm not sure about you, but I wouldn't test my luck with expecting a previously unfaithful partner to suddenly be faithful with me if they have a track record of unfaithfulness. I have more personal value in knowing if someone is unfaithful than if they are an RSO - and yet being an RSO is made public knowledge.
    - unchocked 11y ago
      Not at all sure what you're saying here, nor what RSO means to you.
  - KingMob 11y ago
    > Ashley Madison facilitated relations between consenting adults. Unless all parties involved (spouses included) consented, this is partially false. Full stop. > The jilted spouses had nothing to do with it. The jilted spouses were betrayed, even if unaware and not "involved" in the sex. Full stop. Even in cases where cheating is remotely justified, an honest conversation beats sneaking around.

kordless 11y ago

Having a global objective of reducing suffering sounds great, in theory. Solving the problem of obtaining clean water in drought stricken areas with new technology is a great example of something 'we' can do to help reduce suffering. It remains that people still have to chose to drink water from a newfangled device. Deciding a service people chose to use is causing increased suffering is a great example of something that isn't our problem to solve. They chose that path for themselves and their partners chose the path to be with someone who made those choices. It's not on you, or me, or anyone else to reduce their suffering. That said, people choosing to use a centralized shared store of information for their sensitive data can quickly put them in cognitive dissonance when combining the expectations that the provider will keep their data safe and secure with the desire to achieve the results promised by said site. The real reason we should be satisfied that AM got hacked was not because affairs are immoral. It's that AM was entrusted with sensitive data about it's users that it failed to protect. If a company stores someone's sensitive data in a centralized way with their software, and fails to protect it, they are just as bad as AM. Edit: Added some thoughts and removed a blaming statement.

aetherson 11y ago
What is the line you draw between a service dedicated to enabling affairs, and a service dedicated to enabling, say, emotional spousal abuse? Or physical spousal abuse? Because, those people chose that path for themselves and their partners chose the path to be with someone who made those choices, right? I'm pretty libertarian. I'll basically stand by the right of anyone to do something that makes themselves desperately unhappy because they're adults and can make their own choices. I don't think it should be illegal to cheat on your spouse, and if people want to marry people who are clearly making them unhappy -- even hurting them -- then the most I'll do is strongly suggest they reconsider their choices. But it's a whole different matter to set up a service dedicated to profiting from enabling behavior that's making other people miserable. That's shitty. It shouldn't be illegal, its users should still have privacy, but I'll shed no tears if the proprietors of said service get forced to shut it down.

netcan 11y ago

Liberalism is an idea that has a lot of weight on this site. For some, it's libertarian kind of liberalism where people should be left to make their won economic decisions. For others its the social liberalism kind where people should be allowed to decide for themselves what is a valid marriage, or what drugs they will or won't put in their bodies. Most flavors of liberalism have at their heart the idea that "The State" is neither competent nor qualified to intervene in everything or make all decisions on behalf of its citizens. The State is usually the belligerent, but you could equally say "society" or a body like a twitter mob or a hacker group. We don't need to collectively decide whether or not this site should exist. People should make their own choices. There are a lot of things I think people shouldn't do and other people that help them do that. I don't think people should join churches. But, the only way I want to see churches close down is when people no longer choose to be members. This is a freedom issue, like speech. You don't look inside to make your judgement. There is a right and a wrong here. The wrong is not the site.

TimJRobinson 11y ago
Your style of marriage, your religion and what drugs you take are all victimless crimes. Cheating on your spouse definitely has a victim which is why it's much more of an issue than the others you've listed. Most liberals are not anti state, but pro freedom as long as it doesn't affect anyone else's life.
- Flimm 11y ago
  Style of marriage, religion, drugs and cheating all do affect other people's life, even harm, to varying degrees and definitions. There is no freedom that doesn't affect anyone else's life.
  - wutbrodo 11y ago
    Right, up to and including eating a slice of cheesecake, which is why your definition is useless. What we're discussing here is things that are harmful to others _per se_. Theft, violating agreements (like cheating), etc are obviously examples of this. Religion, drug use, open marriages are obviously not. The distinction here is kot

lectrick 11y ago

> I'm pretty confident that the people running the site are contributing to net misery in the world. To be perfectly, bluntly clear- There isn't actually any suffering (and in some cases, still almost none) until the secret gets out. By that definition (which to me is entirely obvious, but clearly not to others), OUTING all of these people is what will cause tremendous suffering. I don't agree with these blanket "everyone who does this is bad" statements. (I think there's a lot of people who have been cheated on out there and their latent scorn always comes out in these things. Rationality goes out the window when personal feelings are involved.) It's awfully judgmental and sandblasts out all the fine details. What of the man who wants to stay married to his invalid wife but still needs to "get off" at times, and neither wants to break her heart nor can he longer function rationally without? What of the good husband and father who is hiding his bi-ness and therefore takes a man now and then on the side? (What of the woman in the same position?) What of the member of the church demanding absolute celibacy who has invested his life into it but realizes he simply can't function without sexual human contact now and then? Do you seriously expect the amount of upheaval that would result from "outing everyone" to be LESS pain overall than the current situation?

aetherson 11y ago
I agree that outing these people will cause tremendous suffering. I'm not advocating for it. And I didn't make any blanket "everyone who does this is bad" statements -- in fact, I specifically disclaimed the opposite.
- lectrick 11y ago
  And I'm not saying that these people didn't already set all the dominos up to fall themselves. I just wanted to make the point that if the dominos falling is painful, keeping them up in defiance of truth and gravity is not. > I didn't make any blanket "everyone who does this is bad" statements Yet you said that site's existence was a "net negative" for happiness in the world, which (unless I'm not being logical) implies that, on average, the actions of the people on that site are negative, i.e., "bad."
  - 11y ago