Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 sebster wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What is the moral argument for revealing who is cheating? (Let's assume everyone on Madison Ashley actually is an adulterer.)

The moral argument is 'feth them'. That's it. People will and have come up with other rationalisations, but really it's pretty simple - people have done a dickish thing and so some other people have called them on it. People quite like calling other people on their moral failings.

That, of course, isn't a very good reason, but whatever, it isn't going to cause me to have sympathy for the cheaters.

What about sympathy for the cheats' partners, who now stand in danger of this unpleasant knowledge being forced upon them?

This is what I find strange. A lot of people seem to think it more important to punish the adulterers than to protect their partners.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What is the moral argument for revealing who is cheating? (Let's assume everyone on Madison Ashley actually is an adulterer.)

The moral argument is 'feth them'. That's it. People will and have come up with other rationalisations, but really it's pretty simple - people have done a dickish thing and so some other people have called them on it. People quite like calling other people on their moral failings.

That, of course, isn't a very good reason, but whatever, it isn't going to cause me to have sympathy for the cheaters.

What about sympathy for the cheats' partners, who now stand in danger of this unpleasant knowledge being forced upon them?

This is what I find strange. A lot of people seem to think it more important to punish the adulterers than to protect their partners.

If they were in a relationship where their partner was cheating on them, it was likely only a matter of time until they found out anyway--by checking credit cards, browsing history, having the third party spill the beans when the affair went sour, a confession from their partner, or any number of other tell-tales which have been blowing the cover of affairs for centuries.

If a friend of the partner noticed the cheater getting friendly with their AM buddy in a restaurant somewhere and decided to alert the partner, would that make them the one in the wrong for "forcing unpleasant knowledge" upon someone?

 Elemental wrote:
If they were in a relationship where their partner was cheating on them, it was likely only a matter of time until they found out anyway--by checking credit cards, browsing history, having the third party spill the beans when the affair went sour, a confession from their partner, or any number of other tell-tales which have been blowing the cover of affairs for centuries.

If a friend of the partner noticed the cheater getting friendly with their AM buddy in a restaurant somewhere and decided to alert the partner, would that make them the one in the wrong for "forcing unpleasant knowledge" upon someone?

You could also make the argument that if someone confesses to cheating that is "forcing unpleasant knowledge" on the innocent partner.

To expand, I get what KilKrazy's getting at--that "moral" arguments against doing something are often highly subjective, and can be appeals to an arbitary authority. So I'll entirely agree that I can't dismiss something as universally "immoral" with any authority. But on the other hand, breaking a promise to someone who trusts you and to whom you presented yourself as trustworthy seems like as close to basic, universally agreed morality as we have ever come--and personally, if someone proved to me that they didn't subscribe to that, I couldn't see myself ever trusting them.

 sebster wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Animal abuse is a little easier.... Pretty much every study out there shows that people who abuse animals are much, much more likely to commit abusive crimes against humans. By locking up, and tracking/monitoring people who abuse animals, you most likely cut down some of the crime rate as it pertains to other "abuses"

Except animal abuse laws were in place before that relationship was ever known, and most prosecutions of animal abuse are against abusive commercial practices, where the link to psychopathy isn't a factor.

Nah, we have laws against animal abuse because people feel a need to protect animals and punish those who treat them in ways we don't think is acceptable. Whether that's a purely moral standpoint or something else is kind of meaningless, it is what it is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
The ones I have sympathy for are the spouses and children who suddenly have their lives turned upside down. I think most here have been around the block and have seen the results with others or experienced them first hand.
One friend had a cheating wife bring home an STD, infect him, and wreck his ability to have any further children. For all that, he still loves her even though they've been divorced over 20 years.

Sure, I have sympathy for the spouses. But I have sympathy for them whether they're being deceived or have had their partner's adultery revealed - either way that's a gak place to be in.

You feel the exact same way about it as I do. I can't envision crapping all over my wife and kids like that.

Bromsy wrote:Animal abuse laws should be on a scale.

Birds - Birds used to be dinosaurs and dinosaurs used to run this place. Can't let them get aspirations towards doing that ever again, so -2


And that should adjust your sentence for animal cruelty.


(note, not really sure what to do with marsupials)

You forgot one... Cats. See, cats aren't mammals (well, lions, tigers, pumas and the other biguns are, I'm talking fething housecats here) and they are worse than birds.... As such they are a -10 and killing such devilish creatures gets you a tax bonus, a civic medal and a "key to the city" ceremony

Marsupials... ehh, lets call them a net 0, because while I'd say things like kangaroos would be a +1 or 2 penalty, you then have to deal with things like the Platypus (which I guess isn't really a marsupial )

Elemental wrote:

You can commit adultery for sympathetic reasons, but when I sign up to a site with a credit card, and start chatting with other people (who I had never met before that point) in order to choose which one I'm going to cheat with based on who is the most compatible and convenient, I think it would be fair to say I knew what I was getting into.

(edit) Not saying I agree with the hackers, but I really can't manage to feel that bad for the victims either.

I think there are still sympathetic reasons one might join a site like AM, but as one of our other esteemed Vet users here pointed out, he has an account from way back when he was a single soldier, and was looking for, basically a hook-up, and tinder hadn't been invented yet Obviously, AM is going to attract a certain clientele, especially with how they "advertise" their services. But to call everyone on the site a cheater is a bit much.

Animal Cruelty. Judgy McJudgers.

This thread went down like an AM date...

 kronk wrote:
This thread went down like an AM date...

The Dakka Glossary is what makes this quote special

As an update, the data has been leaked as promised.

Still waiting for a easily-searchable web form, which I assume is coming.

I have seen a couple of things hinting that high level officials have been using the site. (Who is shocked there?)

Tony Blair was brought up once or twice.

I have this vision of hackers posting the data and their server immediately being taken down via DOS attack because of all the divorce attorneys downloading copies.

Edit – responding to a post way late. Note sure if it’s better to respond late or never, either way whoops.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What about sympathy for the cheats' partners, who now stand in danger of this unpleasant knowledge being forced upon them?

This is what I find strange. A lot of people seem to think it more important to punish the adulterers than to protect their partners.

More curious is the idea that people who are cheated on only suffer if the betrayal is discovered.

Ouze wrote:
As an update, the data has been leaked as promised.

Still waiting for a easily-searchable web form, which I assume is coming.

I did see one link elsewhere that had a list of the government domains that some accounts came from. There were a lot at both State and Federal level

UN and US government accounts were used.

Well at least the mystery is solved. Now we know why nothing gets done. They're busy with far more important matters!

Who cares what people do or don't do?

The offenders are not the cheaters the offenders are people who seem to think they have the right to police peoples morality. They are no better then governments trying to dictate society morality through social policy. These guys were just much more effective

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I have seen a couple of things hinting that high level officials have been using the site. (Who is shocked there?)

Tony Blair was brought up once or twice.

Why does it matter?

If it doesn't impact their ability to perform their job function, who cares who they're sleeping with. It's none of our business.

blackmail.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I have seen a couple of things hinting that high level officials have been using the site. (Who is shocked there?)

Tony Blair was brought up once or twice.

Why does it matter?

If it doesn't impact their ability to perform their job function, who cares who they're sleeping with. It's none of our business.

But yet... for us government shlubs, we would lose our clearance and our jobs if we had undisclosed affairs because anything which opens you up to blackmail or shows an inability to be trusted invalidates you from dealing with sensitive information.

Imagine if a high ranking senator used this site and china attempted to blackmail him about an affair in order to have him vote a certain way on a high profile trade agreement?

If Johnny Data Analyst can be fired because someone might use his adultery to force him to breach security, then why do elected officials get 'personal life is not my business' when personal life is DIRECTLY THE BUSINESS OF THE GOVERNMENT and why we have extensive background checks for most positions?

It is a big double standard, and the DB china hacked where they got all of our feds background check info shows every gov employee who has a vice or hole or place to be exploited to compromise security.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I have seen a couple of things hinting that high level officials have been using the site. (Who is shocked there?)

Tony Blair was brought up once or twice.

Why does it matter?

If it doesn't impact their ability to perform their job function, who cares who they're sleeping with. It's none of our business.

It's an issue if it exposes them to blackmail compromising security for criminal acts and espionage. But that's an issue for the state and their employer. It's an issue if cheating it exposes hypocrisy in a politician. If they win votes on the basis of being a married family man supporting moral values, but are hiring rent boys on the side, the public have a right to know.

ahh. Fair point gents. I had not considered blackmail possibilities.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I have seen a couple of things hinting that high level officials have been using the site. (Who is shocked there?)

Tony Blair was brought up once or twice.

Why does it matter?

If it doesn't impact their ability to perform their job function, who cares who they're sleeping with. It's none of our business.

I didn't say it did. I was just pointing out what I have seen on the internet. It seems like others have brought up issues that would impact their ability to perform their job, however.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

Spoiler:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I have seen a couple of things hinting that high level officials have been using the site. (Who is shocked there?)

Tony Blair was brought up once or twice.

Why does it matter?

If it doesn't impact their ability to perform their job function, who cares who they're sleeping with. It's none of our business.

It's an issue if it exposes them to blackmail compromising security for criminal acts and espionage. But that's an issue for the state and their employer. It's an issue if cheating it exposes hypocrisy in a politician. If they win votes on the basis of being a married family man supporting moral values, but are hiring rent boys on the side, the public have a right to know.

Exactly. Quite a lot of politicians run on a platform of "family values" and/or their faith-based morality. And, occasionally, some of them get caught with hookers or in affairs. It will be interesting to see just how many of them are on this list, and I am highly curious to see the numbers between political parties. I bet Larry Flynt is already all over this, as he makes it a bit of a personal crusade to uncover just this sort of hypocrisy in politicians.

 cincydooley wrote:


If it doesn't impact their ability to perform their job function, who cares who they're sleeping with. It's none of our business.

Same reason we have laws based on affronts to our moral codes rather than harm caused to others.

Puritanism is really in right now.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

Spoiler:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I have seen a couple of things hinting that high level officials have been using the site. (Who is shocked there?)

Tony Blair was brought up once or twice.

Why does it matter?

If it doesn't impact their ability to perform their job function, who cares who they're sleeping with. It's none of our business.

It's an issue if it exposes them to blackmail compromising security for criminal acts and espionage. But that's an issue for the state and their employer. It's an issue if cheating it exposes hypocrisy in a politician. If they win votes on the basis of being a married family man supporting moral values, but are hiring rent boys on the side, the public have a right to know.

Exactly. Quite a lot of politicians run on a platform of "family values" and/or their faith-based morality. And, occasionally, some of them get caught with hookers or in affairs. It will be interesting to see just how many of them are on this list, and I am highly curious to see the numbers between political parties. I bet Larry Flynt is already all over this, as he makes it a bit of a personal crusade to uncover just this sort of hypocrisy in politicians.

you realize that just because someone registered for AM under the name "tony blair" or some such well know figure, that doesnt necessitate them having actually signed up themselves right?

its just more blackmail on top of black mail really.

whats next? outing all the furries or something?

I got a junk email once from one of these cheating sites several years ago. Saw a picture of my fiancée at that time listed as someone in my area looking for a sugar daddy. Thankfully I found out and quickly ended the relationship. Her excuse was her information was hacked and someone made a fake account with her picture. But her information described her to the T, things nobody would know about her. Thankfully I got rid of her and several years later meet my wife.

If Bill Clinton got away with it................

jwr wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:


If it doesn't impact their ability to perform their job function, who cares who they're sleeping with. It's none of our business.

Same reason we have laws based on affronts to our moral codes rather than harm caused to others.

You mean the ones that were recently ruled unconstitutional? Those ones?

 easysauce wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

Spoiler:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I have seen a couple of things hinting that high level officials have been using the site. (Who is shocked there?)

Tony Blair was brought up once or twice.

Why does it matter?

If it doesn't impact their ability to perform their job function, who cares who they're sleeping with. It's none of our business.

It's an issue if it exposes them to blackmail compromising security for criminal acts and espionage. But that's an issue for the state and their employer. It's an issue if cheating it exposes hypocrisy in a politician. If they win votes on the basis of being a married family man supporting moral values, but are hiring rent boys on the side, the public have a right to know.

Exactly. Quite a lot of politicians run on a platform of "family values" and/or their faith-based morality. And, occasionally, some of them get caught with hookers or in affairs. It will be interesting to see just how many of them are on this list, and I am highly curious to see the numbers between political parties. I bet Larry Flynt is already all over this, as he makes it a bit of a personal crusade to uncover just this sort of hypocrisy in politicians.

you realize that just because someone registered for AM under the name "tony blair" or some such well know figure, that doesnt necessitate them having actually signed up themselves right?

You realize that in order to actually make full use of the site, they had to submit payment information. That would be a bit harder to fake.