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.

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

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

The same one for revealing if your company is violating a law of some kind.

Of course that doesn't excuse doing it illegally.

 Grey Templar 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 same one for revealing if your company is violating a law of some kind.

Of course that doesn't excuse doing it illegally.

Except cheating is not illegal. So it is in no way comparable to whistleblowing on illegal activity.

The hackers are attempting to, through blackmail, enforce their own morality upon others. Would the people who support the hackers still consider it okay to hack the site and threaten to publish details if the hackers had said they did it because it was a violation of Sharia Law, I wonder?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Grey Templar 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 same one for revealing if your company is violating a law of some kind.

Of course that doesn't excuse doing it illegally.

Except cheating is not illegal. So it is in no way comparable to whistleblowing on illegal activity.

The hackers are attempting to, through blackmail, enforce their own morality upon others. Would the people who support the hackers still consider it okay to hack the site and threaten to publish details if the hackers had said they did it because it was a violation of Sharia Law, I wonder?

Are the hackers making demands? I thought they were just doing it for the thrill of it, or because one of their leaders discovered that they'd been cheated upon.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Grey Templar 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 same one for revealing if your company is violating a law of some kind.

Of course that doesn't excuse doing it illegally.

Except cheating is not illegal. So it is in no way comparable to whistleblowing on illegal activity.

The hackers are attempting to, through blackmail, enforce their own morality upon others. Would the people who support the hackers still consider it okay to hack the site and threaten to publish details if the hackers had said they did it because it was a violation of Sharia Law, I wonder?

No its not illegal. But both do violate a moral code.

Morality is not the basis of law, contrary to popular belief. Practicality is.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Morality is not the basis of law, contrary to popular belief. Practicality is.

Actually, all laws are based in moral codes. Someone somewhere decided that X was morally wrong, everyone then came to a consensus that was the case, and so they codified it into a law for everyone to follow.

For practical reasons, not all moral codes or ideals get made into law.

I have to say no not really, they are more based on practical reasons, doing drugs isn't morally wrong, but we decided from a practical reason society doesn't need people high.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I have to say no not really, they are more based on practical reasons, doing drugs isn't morally wrong, but we decided from a practical reason society doesn't need people high.

Actually, most religions consider drugs to be morally wrong.

Except quite a few people have gone to no longer consider it morally wrong. But this doesn't matter. Cheating is not illegal, and while to some it iscwrong, it doesn't matter. They do no deserved to have illegal stuff done to them.

I don't disagree that the leak of information was wrong. 2 wrongs don't make a right afterall. But you'll forgive me if I don't feel sorry for the victims.

Ah Dakka, Always blaming the victim

I never blamed them. I just don't feel sorry for them.

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

The big one I can think of for starters is keeping a cheater from potentially infecting their spouse with an STD picked up somewhere. 10 % of the population has genital herpes:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5807a6.htm?s_cid=mm5807a6_e

Throw other STD's into the mix, including AIDs, and I guess that could be what qualifies for a moral argument.
That being said, anyone throwing those accusations around could end up doing far more damage than good, especially if the accused is innocent.

 Gitzbitah wrote:


Are the hackers making demands? I thought they were just doing it for the thrill of it, or because one of their leaders discovered that they'd been cheated upon.

I heard on the radio here that they were demanding that the site close down or else they would release the details they stole.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:


No its not illegal. But both do violate a moral code.

Whose moral code?

Relapse 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 big one I can think of for starters is keeping a cheater from potentially infecting their spouse with an STD picked up somewhere. 10 % of the population has genital herpes:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5807a6.htm?s_cid=mm5807a6_e

Throw other STD's into the mix, including AIDs, and I guess that could be what qualifies for a moral argument.
That being said, anyone throwing those accusations around could end up doing far more damage than good, especially if the accused is innocent.

There is something in that though I don't think it is 100% conclusive, for various reasons.

OTOH, there is the certainty of damaging the marriages of everyone who is exposed, which surely is not a good thing.

I honestly find it rather strange that there are people willing to defend people who cheat, have cheated or are intending to cheat on someone they are with.

I think its the blackmail bit people are defending AM with

 Jihadin wrote:
I think its the blackmail bit people are defending AM with

That makes sense, though the way I see it AM are the medium trough which though which people can cheat.
I can see why people would want something like that gone.

Also it will be interesting to see if they will shut down those websites or instead let the hackers leak the information about their members.

 Daemonhammer wrote:
I honestly find it rather strange that there are people willing to defend people who cheat, have cheated or are intending to cheat on someone they are with.

Personally, I cannot judge anyone who has cheated, Everyone's situation is different, and everyone handles their own situations differently. I have (technically speaking) been on both sides of a relationship where "cheating" has gone on. In the one case, I was the person the cheater was cheating with (it was high school, and I was getting laid, so I didn't really care... but she did, and was "heartbroken" that I was leaving to join the army). In the other, I was dating a girl, and we had mutually agreed to see other people while we were separated (she was in school).. and apparently that hiatus was considered to be "one sided" (as in, she could see other people, but I couldn't, lol)

As it was posted on another page of this thread, the majority of the time that "cheating" happens, neither party entered into it with the intention of cheating. It just sorta happens. And depending on your religious/moral viewpoints, a person doesn't even need to have sex with another person to be considered a "cheater"

 Daemonhammer wrote:
I honestly find it rather strange that there are people willing to defend people who cheat, have cheated or are intending to cheat on someone they are with.

I'm not defending those who cheat, I just believe that they shouldn't be publicly exposed, including their financial details, for doing so.

People who want to cheat will do it. At least with the website both parties are going into it knowing full well what is going on and what is going to happen. There's no moment where a man or woman discovers that the person they've fallen in love with is actually married, there's no expectation that they're going to leave their wife/husband/boyfriend/girlfriend etc.

Hell, some of the users on there might be in open relationships, do they deserve to have the details of that published onto the internet for everyone to see?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Daemonhammer wrote:
I honestly find it rather strange that there are people willing to defend people who cheat, have cheated or are intending to cheat on someone they are with.

I'm not defending those who cheat, I just believe that they shouldn't be publicly exposed, including their financial details, for doing so.

People who want to cheat will do it. At least with the website both parties are going into it knowing full well what is going on and what is going to happen. There's no moment where a man or woman discovers that the person they've fallen in love with is actually married, there's no expectation that they're going to leave their wife/husband/boyfriend/girlfriend.

Hell, some of the users on there might be in open relationships, do they deserve to have the details of that published onto the internet for everyone to see?

I wasnt specifically talking about you, instead people in general.

You do have a point there, though such a website makes it way easier for people to cheat, as we can see from the massive amounts of users that they have.

People in open relationships are not really the target audience of the website, as they arent trying to cheat on someone they are with so I suppose in a way they will be collateral damage.

I have come to a point where I will tell a person I am with that if they want to they can sleep with other people because I am sick of being cheated on.

 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.

If laws are based on practical reasons and not moral reasons, why were interracial marriages illegal, and why was it changed? Gay marriage? Polygamy? For what practical reason is animal abuse illegal? It's my dog, what practical reason should anyone else care if I kick it? How does it effect them?

 AduroT wrote:
If laws are based on practical reasons and not moral reasons, why were interracial marriages illegal, and why was it changed? Gay marriage? Polygamy? For what practical reason is animal abuse illegal? It's my dog, what practical reason should anyone else care if I kick it? How does it effect them?

Back in the day, there were a whole lot more laws pertaining to the mixing of races than just marriage laws. Marriage in particular, is a whole can of worms set of laws that are probably equal parts morality and practicality.

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"

 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.

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.

 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.

Animal abuse laws should be on a scale.

Like dogs are team human, they evolved with us, they are part of our side so they are +5.

Other primates are okay, we can relate to them. Some of them are complete a-holes who want to rip off your face and genitals. This makes them more like humans, not less. +4

Mammals - basically we can kind of pick up what they are putting down. Sometimes we can coexist. Some of them are large and angry, some of them are delicious. +3

Reptiles - not really on the same page at all, but mostly they are like slowed versions of mammals. Too lazy to warm up their own blood, but they are kind of on similar tracks to us. +2

Fish - Too lazy to evolve lungs and join us air breathing badasses, but also not much of a threat unless you are dumb enough to go where they can kill you. There are even a couple types that don't taste terrible, plus if they ever really screw with us they'd be super easy to wipe out. +1

Amphibians - Nature's cowards. Can't make up their mind about air or water. -1

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)

In the UK there's a clear line between vertebrates and invertebrates. You can't be cruel to an invertebrate and can experiment on them without any licences, etc.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


No its not illegal. But both do violate a moral code.

Whose moral code?

Whichever ones include "It's wrong to freely give a promise of fidelity and then break it." Heck, I'd be more interested to hear about moral codes which that sort of behaviour.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
As it was posted on another page of this thread, the majority of the time that "cheating" happens, neither party entered into it with the intention of cheating. It just sorta happens. And depending on your religious/moral viewpoints, a person doesn't even need to have sex with another person to be considered a "cheater"

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.