Typical.
Free speech! (Until I hear something I don't like!)
Equal rights! (Except for people that are not like me!)
Free speech! (Until I hear something I don't like!)
Equal rights! (Except for people that are not like me!)
But hey, good luck drawing lines where you choose.
The ads speak for themselves: https://www.google.com/search?q=ashlymadison+ads
PS Those ads are awful.
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.
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.
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.
I guess promising to (not) do `X` and not keeping your word makes you untrustworthy but what is the literal harm on someone other than the self-referential belief that breaking promises is bad? To illustrate, let's assume that `X` is something like "I promise to not eat zucchini without you ever again". How is "cheating" by secretly gorging once on zucchini with some friends harmful to the person you give it to, other than their self-induced idea that it is bad?
Basically, it is irrelevant if they "should" or "shouldn't" be harmed, most of them will feel harm once the affair inevitably comes to light. I don't really agree with it, but even if it is irrational to feel harmed over an affair, and even if it is based on self-referential beliefs, people still feel the feelings, and those feelings hurt.
If the cheater knew those feelings would probably happen, and they already promised they would not engage in the behavior, and then they do it anyway...in secret...that is obviously wrong by most people's standards. There are a lot of important "if"s in there. Notice that I did not say that having multiple partners is harmful, or that leaving a partner is wrong, or that it is "always wrong" for someone in a relationship to go off with someone else for awhile. I did not say any of that.
However, when the relationship is a committed relationship, in the most common, Western, traditional sense, it is wrong to have an affair, especially a secret one. If you disagree with that kind of relationship and commitment, that is totally fine, but don't promise that to someone, and if you change your mind be up front about it.
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'.
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?
We should spend more effort removing the potential harm that unwanted information disclosure can cause, rather than running around plugging leaks and jailing whistleblowers.
Would murder legislation prevent you from killing someone if you really wanted to? No? Then I guess there's no point in making murder illegal.
Legislation makes it clear what is sanctioned. It doesn't prevent crime. It defines crime.
>[...] unwanted information disclosure [...]
Legislation is how you say what information disclosure is unwanted. Without it, there is no basis for handling information disclosure at all.
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?
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?