Slashdot Mirror
More Ashley Madison Files Published
An anonymous reader writes: A second round of Ashley Madison data was released today. The data dump was twice as large as the first time, which was bad enough for "19 Kids and Counting" star Josh Duggar, and includes some of CEO Noel Biderman's email as well. The release of the cheating sites data has spawned a small scammer industry as people scramble to find a way to have their information deleted from the leaks. Wired reports: "The new release is accompanied by the note: 'Hey Noel, you can admit it's real now.' The message is likely a response to assertions made by the company's former CTO this week, who tried hard to convince reporters after the first leak occurred that the data dump was fake."
How many suicides and divorces and single-parent homes will this lead to...
The whole operation of Ashley Madison - at least what is described of them in wikipedia - is crooked. I have no respect for such an operation that is built on lies and deceit. However, hacking them and dumping their data publicly is illegal regardless of what they are doing (and to the best of my understanding while Ashley Madison did immoral things, they were not illegal things).
If the hackers want to shut down Ashley Madison they might accomplish that, but they have also shown in so doing that there is a market demand for the services they provided, which will just cause someone else - presumably with better network security practices - to launch an identical service.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Otherwise, they're going to miss out on all the fun. I mean, the US Army said they didn't like this conduct of their soldiers, so adding a lot of known emailaddresses for high ranking officials could be fun.
More suggestions for the next release: contacting some well-known figures in advance, and extorting money from them. Yeah I know - a lot of scammers are already trying that one. Too bad. You could still give it a try though. Adding a few presidential candidates in the mix would be entertaining too.
My hope is that this will teach people to use fake accounts when signing up for these services and only pay in cash, or with anonymous payment options. Probably idle hope...
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
The thing that is really concerning about this AM hack is not the data being real. I'm sure it MOSTLY is.
The problem is that the hackers could ALSO have added a handful of entries for people they hate for whatever reason. Even if AM could verify they were not a customer, would anyone believe them?
You also have to wonder, how much did the hackers make from pre-accepting payments for deletion from the master set they are releasing...
It will be very interesting going forward who is rapidly identified as being in the database... especially political figures.
You have to wonder, how did someone find Josh Duggar in there so quickly? Were they tipped off?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Christmas is August.
My sympathy for people whose names may have been revealed in this data breach is exactly zero.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
About the infidelity? I agree, that's dumb.
About the hypocrisy of duggar? Yeah, it is pretty pointless, his politics are stupid even if he were to have abided by them.
About the security breach and responses to it? You're on the wrong website.
I wonder how many of these outed AM customers where all hemming and hawing about gay marriage ruining the sanctity of their marriage.
I need to get out of IT and join the divorce law industry.
They paid to get screwed.
Seems they are getting their money's worth.
Or maybe it says something about the integrity of the people in your town.
When people first get married, they are very committed to each other. Then, as with so much else in life, the grass on the other side starts to look greener. All that proves is that people change - but it doesn't mean that we need to abandon the concept of lifelong, committed marriages, just that people need be marriage preparation so the cooling of the first ardour isn't such a shock. And given that marriage is by far the best environment to bring up children, anything that destroys that environment is a BAD THING. There is something deeply perverse about the massive reaction to child abuse allegations, but generally relaxed attitude to divorce where there are kids. They are both catastrophic for the kids involved...
Anyone know a publically traded law firm specializing in divorce law? I have this feeling it would be a great time to invest in some shares!
When the federal government didn't revoke the clearances of the users of AM that were cleared and one of them gets blackmailed by the Chinese into doing something illegal. I'd bet good money that the Chinese scrambled to get ahold of this data and cross reference it for some easy targets.
Funny thing is, this data isn't time sensitive. Most of the people on the list probably won't be caught by their spouse because it's unlikely that most spouses will think they need to check. That and the federal employee and contractor labor force is several million people and only a few tens of thousands of email addresses were implicated.
I guess there's people into that.
So the only thing this proves is that humans are not monogamous. The thing the hacker should think of is if this prostitution is better than having two consenting people having an affair and bring some extra spice into their life.
These hackers are dumb trying to impose their moral judgement on people that just want to feel some excitement in line with our nature. The sooner we give up our pretentious believes in the Holywood romance, the sooner we can get healthy long term relationships.
and getting caught in the rain?
I don't think it's wrong to care bout the hypocrisy of people like Mr. Duggar, especially when such individuals attempt to change the law to criminalize behavior in the name of views that they themselves espouse but personally won't even try to live-up to. Make no mistake, this is not a case of someone struggling with infidelity because of temptation around him, this someone that has gone out of his way to pay in-advance for the chance to be unfaithful, and actively maintained the accounts established in early 2013 while accepting an executive position about four months later with an organization whose goals are completely contrary to his actions.
If someone not only takes but advocates a strong position in the culture wars and then themselves violates that view, they deserve to be ridiculed for it. The view or position also deserves to be ridiculed.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Where do I find the data dump?
> the only people stupid enough to believe in that made-up marriage garbage,
No, they're tricking a lot of gays now with their push to shove gay marriage down our throats. They hate us so they want us to suffer just like their kind does with marriage. Now, instead of just enjoying ourselves, they know we're going to eventually end-up having the same awkward marriage conversations that only their kind was subject to. The Republican's push for gay marriage is the worst thing that has ever happened to our community.
After years of union with the same person, isn't that normal to want another body? Isn't that a natural and physical need?
No, I don't think it is. At least, not from my point of view. I'm married and would never ever consider cheating.
with no "takers". such is life.
This is a viewpoint that's very vocal but overstated. For a lot of people monogamy is secure, comfortable, and satisfies their sexual needs - particularly when the partners communicate openly about sex.
Incidentally a relationship is between two people, not society at large; if you feel you need to have sex with other people be up front about it, maybe your potential partner will be game, maybe they won't, but at least it saves the messy lying and trust violation.
...stolen from the hacker's files!
Like: “Sure, Miss Wong, I’ll let you use my login!” — SecuritySupervisor@opm.gov.
100% authentic!*
*Which is to say, every bit as authentic as the vast majority of "women" you can contact on Ashley Madison...
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
This new batch isn't more customers. They released all the AM customers already.
The new batch is other internal data from AM.
The articles have been kinda misleading in that they suggest that AM customers have more to worry about. No, their info was all leaked right away. It's the management of AM that may still have more to worry about. (In particular, I expect that emails about their creation of fake profiles may constitute evidence of fraud and lead to criminal charges.)
Your counter argument depends on a false analogy. Wearing a short skirt is not at all like attempting to commit adultery.
To pretend that someone caught cheating is similarly a victim is a really offensive position to take. People are entitled to wear anything they want without threat of sexual assault. People are not entitled to commit adultery without risk of being discovered.
One must go out of their way to have an affair, whereas sexual assault can happen to anyone without provocation.
Fortunately Slashdot readers are pretty savvy, I doubt too many people will be fooled by your false equivocation.
I'd say yes, it is that difficult for people to be that honest with their life partner. If it was so easy we probably wouldn't have an entire marital therapy industry, complete with entire sections at bookstores devoted to relationship advice, various professional qualifications and so on.
Even people who want to monogamous and only want to sleep with their partners find sex a total emotional minefield, difficult to discuss and so on. I don't know a married man over the age of 30 who hasn't complained about his sex life. And even a few who have made an honest effort with their spouses to be honest with their partners and not made improvements. And none of them have otherwise broken relationships.
Other than pathological personality types and totally broken relationships, I'd bet most sex driven affairs are started by men who are unhappy with the quantity or quality of their sex lives, or at least that's my personal perception and the general opinion of most other married men I've talked to.
Of course so many things contribute you can't hardly list them all -- children, careers, money, appearance (your partner's or your own self image), boredom, emotional engagement, stress, cultural messages, booze, and the fact that people just plain change over time and the person you're married to today isn't identical to the person you married 10, 20, 30 or more years ago.
I'd also wager there's an evolutionary biology component, where women's libidos fade as they approach menopause and/or after having kids and simply lose interest. I think it's probably an evolutionary biology kind of thing because the risk of birth defects rise with the age of the mother and childbearing (and rearing) is more physically and emotionally straining as they age. Couple this with an evolutionary biology angle to partner selection by men (young, fertile, etc) and you have a built-in recipe for male-initiated affairs.
The Nazi admins banned anyone from making cow jokes.
I want 5000 additional counts of infidentially to be taken into account !!
The view or position also deserves to be ridiculed.
I was right with you up to this statement. You are welcome to ridicule the position, as you are entitled to your opinion, however the phenomenon of hypocrisy and people behaving like jerks is orthogonal to the correctness or incorrectness of the position they postured themselves as upholding. If you will allow me a quote from the Bible, "Put not your trust in princes," meaning even the (alleged) best specimens of humanity will let you down. This is true of views you may cherish as well -- so you find public environmentalists who privately show they really don't care, etc.
I'm still waiting for them to play Lopsided.
> Given that the customer list is 95% male, I'd rephrase that to "attempted" cheating.
> I'd put money on number of guys that actually got lucky as a direct result of the site being no more than a rounding error compared to the total.
That seems to assume a one-to-one relationship between males and females, which is odd for a site that seems to be advocating for many-to-one relationships.
So, Gawker is just fine with going over the lurid details of someone's sex life here, but they've also claimed that was verbotten at other times. I can't really keep up with their stance on this, other than that it seems to shift with the wind. Ahh well, just another good reason not to fall for the clickbait.
... was in the data dump. It seems he was having a secret fling with the Democratic Party.
Have gnu, will travel.
If you will allow me a quote from the Bible, "Put not your trust in princes," ...
And "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." As in, human beings are imperfect creatures, and you'll find many of them that haven't perfectly obeyed every principle they value.
Except the perfect people on /. who ridicule not only the imperfect people who can't manage perfection in following a moral standard, but the moral standard as well because it is followed by those imperfect people.
Does anyone have the number of the good divorce attorney?
Asking for a friend.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The Nazi admins
What a bunch of pathetic sheep. How baaaaaad can they get?
Have gnu, will travel.
He's on the top floor, apartment 23. But you won't find him there... he's up on the roof with his cows. He keeps cows. Dirty... disgusting... filthy... lice-ridden cows. You used to be able to sit out on the stoop like a person. Not anymore! No, sir! Cows!... You get my drift?
You are welcome on my lawn.
If you are too self centered and can't control yourself, maybe you should stop pretending to play in the adult world and just peddle yourself in Thailand. Regardless of what you do, don't promise to love someone and then shit all over them. Look at Bill Clinton. All he will be remembered for is being a scumbag. If you can't be trusted to keep it in your pants, you probably can't be trusted at all. The days of making excuses for assholes is over dirtbag.
Way back when Heidi Fleiss got arrested for running a prostitution ring, and her list of clients fell into the hands of the police, my first thought was: if it were *me*, I'd have:
a) had a backup copy, and
b) been regularly adding high-ranking authorities (for instance: the chief of police) to the list of clients. In a diary fashion, interspersed (in the records) with the appointments of real clients.
For b) especially, having dates and times when the high-ranking official is known to be away from home, such as noon times if they have a day job, or adding verifiable corroborating information such as "and he came in soaking wet" on rainy days and such, would have gone a long way towards giving Ms. Fleiss some leverage.
Ah well... people don't think ahead in these modern times.
Apropos of nothing, I saw this on a friend's twitter feed:
ME: Hunny, did you have an Ashley Madison account?
HER: What?! No!
ME: Damn. That would have made what I'm about to say, a lot easier.
There are biological foundations to this issue. I used to work with researchers at the Yerkes Primate Center who were working on this very problem. The idea is that males want to ensure the paternity of their children if they are going to expend resources raising them. So they are protective of their sex partner. Females want to ensure that they have the help they need in providing for their offspring, so they desire a faithful partner. These needs drive the species toward monogamy.
At the same time, females want to enhance the odds of successful offspring by having more than one mating partner. (Partners who would be notoriously bad as long term spouses are particularly attractive ... the bad-boy alpha male) Males also want to enhance their chances of having successful offspring by having partners that do not require them to stay around and provide for the kids. So both genders have an incentive to secretly violate the monogamous bond.
Therefore you see a continuum of activities along these lines within and among human societies. One of the researchers reported that as many as 1/3 to 1/2 of all children in the pre-industrialized societies she examined were the result of illicit affairs. Most of these societies frowned on infidelity much more than we in the west do.
Enter game theory and genetics, which argue for a balancing act between the two competing needs, with different people taking different strategies and feeling different drives. Another researcher at Yerkes gave a talk about the "seven year itch". She had evidence that suggested a biological basis for the lagging emotions of marriages a few years along - with parallel evidence from other species. You know that "he's just not romantic any more" trope that is trotted out to explain a flagging libido and attraction to other partners? She had a theory that this was an instinctual result of changing hormones affecting the brain. The end result was to drive a woman to seek out other sex partners in order to ensure genetic diversity in her offspring.
So the answer is yes, it is complicated.
BTW, I'm in your camp. I would never consider cheating, and have a few decades of experience to back up that characterization of my own proclivities. But I do recognize that this is not everyone's experience. And I've been close enough to a few people who took a different path to know that it isn't just culture or upbringing that makes for fidelity.
I signed up a while ago and had a hot night with a GILF named Hillary.
Should I be worried?
the phenomenon of hypocrisy and people behaving like jerks is orthogonal to the correctness or incorrectness of the position they postured themselves as upholding.
What bullshit, if your position is correct then you don't need to engage in hypocrisy to hide your true motive.
Way to go guys, now if I click top right to open comments on the reposted poll, it doesn't go anywhere until I expand options.
Honesty may be the best policy, but by process of elimination, dishonesty is the second best policy.
The view or position also deserves to be ridiculed.
I was right with you up to this statement. You are welcome to ridicule the position, as you are entitled to your opinion, however the phenomenon of hypocrisy and people behaving like jerks is orthogonal to the correctness or incorrectness of the position they postured themselves as upholding. If you will allow me a quote from the Bible, "Put not your trust in princes," meaning even the (alleged) best specimens of humanity will let you down. This is true of views you may cherish as well -- so you find public environmentalists who privately show they really don't care, etc.
sideslash that is a Cancer Post.
If you will allow me a quote from the Bible, "Put not your trust in princes,"
That is how a Jew would quote Scripture. Don't trust ___xyz___. Don't do this, don't do that, unless you can sneak a way and justify circumventing your law. The snippet, of a part of a verse, you alluded to, is from a Psalm in the Old Testament. The entire verse is Psalm 146:3.
King James Bible
Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.
Douay-Rheims Bible
in the children of men, in whom there is no salvation.
GOD'S WORD® Translation
Do not trust influential people, mortals who cannot help you.
Obviously you can discern it does not mean don't trust the Son of Man (caps for a reason) who is --> Jesus Christ.
http://biblehub.com/psalms/146-3.htm
The meaning has been clarified so not to conflict with other usages of the phrase "Son of Man" for those who could be confused. Jesus Christ is also referred to as the "Son of Man". I'm sure anybody who doesn't already understand can find out why, even with Google. Read your Scripture.
When commenter sideslash continued on, nested hypocrisy is obvious.
You are welcome to ridicule the position, as you are entitled to your opinion,
You promoted ridicule directly as if it were a principle, when it is not. ("welcome to") It is much closer to a sin than a principle, yet neither sin nor principle. You also gave a hint at knowledge of Scripture. You are out of context. The Jews mocked and still mock Jesus. Ridicule is weaker than rebuke. No Jew can possibly rebuke Jesus. So it's evident that rebuke (eg. criticism/correction) is greater than ridicule (amusing yourself by your own pride while demonizing/shaming.)
however the phenomenon of hypocrisy and people behaving like jerks
Jerk is a label. It is hypocritical to push a Psalm (a prayer) out of context then to promote judging people. (which is ridicule, not rebuke)
------------
Now as for the article and story of cheaters getting exposed... let me first relate it to Scripture. Simply: God already saw the cheating. His approval matters. Those that were married knowing full well it's in the sight of God are probably not affected by a leak of cheaters anyway. For those who married for some other reason, then cheated? yeah, you're mad lol.
http://biblehub.com/ephesians/4-6.htm
This looks to be payday for divorce lawyers... and more social decay for the institution of marriage. All that is really left is for dogs and cats to be granted marriage licenses. They love each other right?
As for anybody who would ridicule Jesus Christ or God... and this goes especially for the Jews who do stupidly mock and foolishly ridicule Jesus Christ... Jesus is not the Father nor does He claim to be at any time. The spirit in Jesus is that of GOD THE FATHER. Without understanding Jesus you will not understand God. http://biblehub.com/john/14-6.htm
http://biblehub.com/matthew/22-37.htm
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
http://drbo.org/chap
so all humans are imperfect and deserve compassion and understanding, except for the ones that disagree with you? gotcha!
No, it really doesn't. It may provide women with some transitory security as far as child rearing goes but to claim monogamy is the de facto best option is a sorry punchline.
It's pretty obvious that you are not happily married, and you don't even know what a happy marriage is about. Really you have absolutely no clue about the comfort and daily happiness that comes from a secure long lasting relationship. Children have very little to do with it.
Or maybe it says something about the integrity of the people in your town.
it says the ministers couldn't find what they wanted among the locals, good for them
I'm pretty sure most dashslot readers have not even been accused of "molesting five children, including his own sisters", become addicted to pornography, AND been unfaithful to their spouse and parent of their children.
I've managed to avoid all of that, and I imagine that most here have managed to avoid most of that.
That's basically the reason that we can't have an honest conversation about these things. Social norms are apparently perpetuated by the people least interested in preserving them, under some sort of pretense that they feel they need to show, due to those norms.
The very people who most want or need to change society feel compelled to vocally oppose that change. It was easy when we could point to race or gender as being obviously different, but you can't get a gay Republican to say "I'm gay, and you guys like me, so let's just drop it." Okay, maybe 3.
Can you get someone to stand up and say "I think it's normal to molest children, so let's just decriminalize it"? No, and it's really unlikely to happen for a lot of reasons unrelated to culture. But acceptance of infidelity and homosexuality is culture specific.
Let's ridicule everyone who professes one life and lives another, because they should have done more to stand up for their true beliefs. Not just for themselves, but for everyone like them.
That's so much more like the Golden Rule, and the Jesus part of the Bible, as opposed to the Angry God part of the Bible, which Jesus specifically waved aside in several specific areas, your example being one.
"Do unto others" does not mean "persecute those who actually follow the lifestyle you want to have".
I suppose the point of view is determined by several variables. Some of which would be:
1) Are you content with your relationship ? Is your partner ? ( Your answer may be one thing today, and something far different twenty years from now )
2) Your beliefs ( religion and non-religion )
3) Your societies beliefs ( some are strictly monogamy, others polyamory )
Marriage has devolved into something to fear these days. If you get married and something doesn't go right ( and last I checked quite a few marriages end prematurely ), a divorce not only tears families apart ( ask the kids how they feel about the whole thing ) but someone is going to be absolutely destroyed financially. Imagine working towards retirement only to have half of everything you own taken away from you a few years out. You would never recover from it. You'll be working until you die.
It's such a potential risk that prenuptial agreements are a thing. However, using them puts one of the biggest factors in the reasons marriages fail into play right from the beginning: Mistrust. So you get to choose: You're either telling your partner you don't fully trust them or you're running the risk of financial ruin later in life if a divorce is granted and it doesn't play out in your favor. :|
Just stay single. Co-habitate if you want ( take steps to ensure common-law cannot be declared ) and things are much easier to deal with if either of you ever decide you need to make a change.
Trustily only searches by email address. Do you know Josh Duggar's email address? Much less the one email address he would have felt secure enough with to sign up for AM?
To search by name, you have to download a 9+GB torrent...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
4.4 million total viewers and posted a 3.5 household rating
So what? You seriously think there's not someone even MORE famous, or good for gossip, in that set of data?
Why Josh, of all people, to be first there? It's not like I'm a fan, or car at all about what people think of him. I just find it odd that his is the only well-known name floated, and it happened just hours after the release of the data.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
No, it really doesn't. It may provide women with some transitory security as far as child rearing goes but to claim monogamy is the de facto best option is a sorry punchline.
"Best" is a value judgment, so I'm not going to go there. But is it so hard to believe that some people like monogamy and have found a partner who is good enough to be monogamous with?
Hell, monogamy could be thought of as a sexual orientation.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
If you're going to sign up for some site like Fetlife, don't use your real name! Oh, gotta pay to get the good connections? Hmmmmm, I never did that as too dangerous with real credit cards. Though I heard you can buy throwaway credit card (buy $250 in cash for and use for smut sites).
People are different. As you get older you'll start to understand this.
"For a lot of people", he said.
"but to claim monogamy is the de facto best option" is what you said, which doesn't match what he said.
You're fucking stupid.
> I'm pretty sure most dashslot readers have not even been accused of "molesting five children, including his own sisters",
Given the accusations and abuse heaped on various software project leaders or contributors, it's more common than you may realize.
Also, I'm afraid that the standards for what constitutes "molesting children" vary from culture to culture, and even from state to state. There are cultures where clitorectomy, which I would certainly classify as sexual abuse of children, is considered part of proper upbringing. Looking at https://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/ol... for rape statutes, the first state listed considers it a felony for an 18 year old to have sex with a 15 year old.
Even marriage among siblings has occurred in small communities, and among royalty, throughout history. And sexual play among siblings is surprisingly common among humans and other mammals. This doesn't mean that I, for one, recommend it. But by itself, without violence or threats or other harassment, it should not turn the recipient of sexual molestation into an automatic object of lifelong pity.
A game developer fucks five dudes in the game industry (at least one of whom is cheating on his wife while the game developer is also cheating on her boyfriend) and feminists and social justice warriors and game journalists lose their fucking shit over the fact that people are upset with it (not because of the fucking, but because of the corruption involved in fucking people you're writing about or assigning people to write about).
Some random people nobody has ever heard of have extramarital affairs (presumably but not necessarily behind their spouse's back) and suddenly it's totally okay to hate on them and judge them and attack them.
And the lesson to be learned is that once you post 'stuff' on the Internet then it is no longer private and it could come back to haunt you at any time.
If you have Writ's Leg, and a tome of Town Portal, he's on the other side of a portal.
Please excuse me for posting as AC, hope you can understand.
I am a single, widowed senior. I have tried several dating sites over the last couple of years. The business practices of this industry are often shady - credit card purchases in the English isles which don't have credit card customer protections as in the US, for example. And the women on the sites are often fictitious.
However, on a lark, I tried AM after some other dating sites. I found a woman, also semi retired, also single, and we have had a great relationship over the last couple of months, and this one may last. We both went on AM because we had tired of other dating sites, not looking for affairs with married people.
Not looking forward to these disclosures, but I really don't have anything to hide, despite posting as AC.
The disdain some posters show for AM customers is not that misguided IMHO - if you are married, and you have problems, you should work on your marriage.
Having said these things...this is kind of fun to watch.
No, I don't think it is. At least, not from my point of view. I'm married and would never ever consider cheating.
That's 'cuz your wife is totally hot!
Signed, Bill Clinton
Most states' conspiracy convictions require an "overt act" in furtherance of the conspiracy in order to separate it from idle talk. Signing up for a website advertising with the slogan '...have an affair' would seem to meet this.
First off how do we know that the hackers used exclusively Ashley Madison data? If there is no way to validate that, how can the data be trusted? What if random phone book or data from other sites were included in the data dump? Why are people just blinding trusting it? Are they that dumb?
Sorry I want to see proof that it's not contaminated with spurious data from other sites or public sources so that the hackers can hit their 37 million number.
I don't know who Mr Duggar is, and by the sound of it, I wouldn't really want to know him. But, it is sad fact that the ones who speak out the loudest against 'sin' are the ones who have most trouble staying away from it. However, cheating on your spouse or partner is plainly wrong - not because any supposed sanctity of marriage or because haveing several sex partners is wrong as such, but because when you get married or enter a partnership, you make a promise, explicitly or implicitly, to stay faithful - unless you explicitly agree that not doing so is OK. Being trustworthy is what it is about, and it is fundamentally important, not just in a family, but also in the wider society. Business, among other things, runs on trust. As they saying goes, a man is only as good as his word.
After years of union with the same person, isn't that normal to want another body? Isn't that a natural and physical need?
No, I don't think it is. At least, not from my point of view. I'm married and would never ever consider cheating.
I have to say, I think it is probably very natural and normal to feel the temptation. But cheating is cheating - if you made a promise, you have to keep it or else make a clean break. And calling it 'a physical need' is just an attempt to say that it isn't your fault that you are a cheat. The right way to go about it is to decide whether your marriage is good enough for you want to work on repairing the things that are not working, or else to get a divource; otherwise you are simply trying to get something without having to pay for it.
Obviously all the people that cheated on their spouses is sad. Its all betrayal and treachery.
The actually shocking betrayal though was the response by Ashely Madison to not shut down.
An establishment like that has an ethical obligation to protect the identities of its clients. Obviously their security was poor. But ignoring that, they were given an ultimatum and they should have caved. Instead they put the survival of the site above the security of the client and since the survival of the site is existentially threatened by the security, they can't maintain the site and betray their clients.
But they did.
This makes it clear that if you deal with them... they'll betray you the same way you're betraying your spouse.
There's no respect or honor here. Its just weasels screwing each other.
I'm generally pleased the people cheating on their spouses are getting outted. People get upset about the "judgementalism" of that but the same people fail to grasp the hypocrisy in that they're judging others for being judgmental.
You either have judgements of people or you have no opinion. I choose to have opinions. Those that have opinions that other people shouldn't have opinions are fucking retards. I don't really have a strong enough insult to sum up what fucking lackwit, slackjawed, nitwits they are... and that's not really the most irritating thing about them. the TRULY obnoxious thing about them is that they don't know they're morons and people don't label them as such with impunity.
Frankly I think the people that don't like the judgements are mostly trying to protect themselves from quite righteous contemplations.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Out of interest, married for how long? 50+ years yet? Because 'never ever' is a hell of a long time.
If you are male, you know the divorce will not play out in your favor in the majority of the western world. No idea why you are writing as if there were any doubts.
It is not only the creation of fake profiles. I hope they uncover people paid to pose as interested parties to make you go from trial to paid user for instance. When I was single and in a country where the majority of people did not interest me as a partner, I opened a profile in a site for singles, and sure enough, in the first week I had some a couple of women seeking to talk with me, but the data did not compute. The race, the name and their tongue when you considered them together did not compute. The kicker was that for you to sustain a dialogue with them, you add to upgrade from the "free" profile to the paid one. Most of the sites do that...
"Bite the Pillow" has spoken.
A lot of dating sites are scams. Locally they now have a branch organisation that tries to weed out the worst offenders but it's hard work. And even if the organisation itself does not scam, there's plenty of "women" trying to make a few bucks by scamming the desperate.
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
For a lot of people monogamy is secure, comfortable, and satisfies their sexual needs - particularly when the partners communicate openly about sex.
As a man, I have not yet met another married man who finds that his sexual needs are satisfied. Women just don't want it as often as men. Rather than just let the man have sex whenever he wants it, they just say no unless they also want to have sex. Despite this, it is expected of husbands not to cheat on their wives. So although makes are designed with a need to have sex probably 7 times as frequently as women, they still have to limit themselves to only having sex with one woman. Undoubtedly this has led to infidelity on a lot of men's part, not because they don't love their wives but because they are sexually frustrated. But women see this as not living them and want to get divorced when this happens.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
This is awesome. The suspicious xians are the only people stupid enough to believe in that made-up marriage garbage, and now their lies are coming back to bite them. They lie and say marriage exists and is real then they're proven to have taken that lie even farther. I love how every minister in the town I live in has been proven to have had an account there. That proves all of those Republicans are liars. Liars. Athena was the Greek goddess of wisdom which is why Republicans hate her. Again, lack of wisdom destroys their own lives and the house of lies their kind tries to build. Maybe this will slow down their war on women. This is even a bigger deal than the papers leaked from the Ramstein Air Base Affair.
Ah, so the whole thing where democrats were pushing gay marriage just never happened then?
Must suck to be in your town. 0 of the ministers in my town have been proven to have been on the site. In fact, 0 ministers anywhere have been proven to be on there as far as I have heard. So the town you live in must exist only in your head, and you must just be somebody with a hardon for bashing republicans and Christians with lies. You surely are one disgusting creature.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
I realize we're all getting a chuckle out of cheaters being outed on the Internet, but still this kinda sucks. Today it may be AshleyMadison, but what if tomorrow it's bank records? I can't say I'm happy about these hackers doing that, only for what it may mean in the future.
Textbook case for FUD for Ashley Madison and plausible deniability for the cheaters.
Anyway, I'm 75% sure in a few days people will look back at it and have a good laugh...
This is an age old argument, likely without a real single answer but a lot of controversy. While I don't have all the same data and theories to back up my opinions like you do, I do have some anecdotal observations I think we can all agree on. In my humble opinion, human beings certainly have an instinctual nature that is likely baggage from everything we've evolved from both in our hominid line and everything prior to it. I think that would be impossibly difficult to deny. All of which includes the deep desire for the propagation of our species, with multiple mates, with all of the evolutionary advantages it brings to the table. However one of the critical traits of our homo sapiens nature that make us stand far out from any other species is the fact it is in our very nature to override our nature. Based on all of the cultural variety we see out there today, there really are not limits to our social behaviors and constructs but there are definitely many commonalities. We create things like honor, laws, bravery, religion, stoicism, politics, morality, matrimony, and on and on and on... The inner strength and power we have to command and control our desires and behaviors and direct them in many different shapes and forms is really quite fantastic.
We can easily find a surprising amount of intelligence in many other species on our little planet but none of them exhibit the nature-over-nature trait as strongly as we do. Truly, I believe that is what makes us human. So my personal counter to the age old question "Isn't that a natural and physical need?" would be, "yes it certainly is, but I and many others would consider it a weakness in your humanity."
I would wager large sums of internets that most of those accounts were either inactive, or fakes.
the phenomenon of hypocrisy and people behaving like jerks is orthogonal to the correctness or incorrectness of the position they postured themselves as upholding.
What bullshit, if your position is correct then you don't need to engage in hypocrisy to hide your true motive.
Not sure what you were drinking yesterday, but hopefully the hangover wasn't too bad. Let's try again: There are some people who are kind to animals in public, but get outed by hidden cameras for cruelty such as kicking their dog. According to you, their hypocrisy proves that it's OK to kick dogs. However, according to me, this proves that human beings are flawed. Which theory looks better this morning (or whatever time it is in your part of the world), hmm?
There are many solutions to this problem. Most of them involve masturbation.
Sure it's normal, it's the lying about it part that generally causes the problems, and the "I can do it but you can't" attitude that also frequently accompanies it. I'm in a polyamorous relationship, it's fantastic.
Met a woman who hadn't had sex in over 4 years. Her husband stopped touching her after her last child. We had sex. It was great. I never learned her real name. She felt better about herself afterwards and left her husband (not for me, but just because).
My spouse had a medical condition which left us without sex for 5 years. I say 'spouse', but we weren't actually married, we lived together. I approached her about an open relationship, she didn't like it. She stopped trying to address her medical condition and didn't have much of a sex drive. I broke up with her, but she didn't seem to want to listen to me, and nothing changed. So I joined AM and had an affair. I was desparate.
After the affair, I kicked her out of the house. One of the hardest things to do because I was in love with her. It takes a *long* time and a *lot* of sexual frustration to kick somebody out over something like this. It's something that lived with me for over a decade. The guilt over the affair? Didn't last more than a few years.
So yep, there are women on that site. Great that people can now look them up, and hey, I can find her real name! And hey, my present spouse can look me up and find my inactive account from 10 years ago! Yay!
Fucking idiot white knight hackers.
Naziism is for cows! Nazis are all cows! Mooooooooooooooooo!
If you will allow me a quote from the Bible, "Put not your trust in princes," ...
And "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." As in, human beings are imperfect creatures, and you'll find many of them that haven't perfectly obeyed every principle they value.
Except the perfect people on /. who ridicule not only the imperfect people who can't manage perfection in following a moral standard, but the moral standard as well because it is followed by those imperfect people.
The thing is, the Duggars are so smug and sanctimonious about their way of life while teaching and preaching a philosophy that is, frankly, abusive. It makes prizes of women and views men as uncontrollable sex maniacs (In the case of Jim Bob and his poor wife, that may be the case). So there is a bit of schadenfreude when someone who proclaims to live some pious existence, that is so much closer to god than the rest of us sinners, turns out to have the same proclivities as we do.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
I'm pretty sure most dashslot readers have not even been accused of "molesting five children, including his own sisters", become addicted to pornography, AND been unfaithful to their spouse and parent of their children.
I've managed to avoid all of that, and I imagine that most here have managed to avoid most of that.
And you're not even a Quiverfull Christian! How did you manage?
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
There are many solutions to this problem. Most of them involve masturbation.
If masturbation were a long-term substitute for sex, we would have died out as a species long ago. It works as a band-aid for immediate urges. But if someone is not getting enough sex in their long-term relationship, masturbation is not a solution.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
I'd hope -whether you love hate or are indifferent- that sticking a cigar in an ugly chick's poop chute was the least of your concerns.
Poop chute? I had always assumed they put it in her vagina.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
There are many solutions to this problem. Most of them involve masturbation.
Oh, but guess what? That is supposedly cheating as well.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
you know this because you have faith that is not founded in facts. I hear many horror stories from whiny ex-husbands who want to blame their ex-wife for the child support payments. Of course, these assholes didn't want to care for the children, were cheating, etc., but that doesn't matter to them. Egotistical narcissists.
On the other hand, I know of cases where the father won exclusively custody and the ex-wife ordered to pay child support. Why? Because she was an egotistical narcissist who was cheating, etc., and unable to provide for the children.
So, sure, if the husband is an asshole and the wife is able to provide a better home then the courts will most likely award her sole custody and there will be child support payments. But you know what the court *actually* prefers? Joint custody with minimal payments to address imbalance.
But whiny assholes gotta make excuses.
Why is it that so many married people felt the need to cheat on their spouse? That's the real issue here I think. Putting aside for a moment the stupidity of signing up at a public website and entrusting them with your intimate and personal details. Kind of sounds like Facebook, but i digress.
Are there really that many married couples that are so unhappy that they feel the need to seek intimacy outside their marriage? Apparently so. This is just a theory but I think that some of this is due to punitive divorce settlements. A lot of people might say that if a guy is unhappy he should just get a divorce. OK, but then your ex gets half of your assets. And probably majority custody of the kids. You might even get stuck paying alimony as well. Not to mention attorney fees.
So for some guys (and women too) it's easier and far cheaper to get a piece on the side. I'm not condoning this behavior I'm just pointing out a possible reason as to why it is happening. If it were easier and less costly to get a divorce then maybe there would be less cheating?
No.
You fucking idiot.
What he's saying is "Give the guy a fucking break, man. He's got a religion whose one and only god is a God of Forgiveness. He espouses it for a reason -- he's not perfect, so stop acting like he's perfect. He never said he was perfect. YOU assholes are pretending to be perfect while saying HE pretended to be perfect" -- how you interpreted that as a personal attack is your own fucking delusion, you stupid piece of shit.
The only reason the Duggars are in the news is because they profess to be Christian, and for that one fact alone, people have been dedicating their lives to dig through the Duggar family background to find something... anything, to sabotage them and cause them misery.
If someone decided to devote to their lives for a vendetta against former Jersey Shore cast, I'm sure a LOT worse would turn up, but because they don't mention their religion, nobody cares to go out of their way for a personal vendetta to destroy their lives just because of it.
"Put not your trust in princes," meaning even the (alleged) best specimens of humanity will let you down.
I thought it meant they tend to get turned into frogs by witches when you most need them. and then you need to seek out a princess to turn them back.
Perhaps you are not normal.
Well, I'm sure glad you got that off your chest. Feel better now?
The Republican's push for gay marriage...
What alternate universe are you posting from?
You're arguing something entirely different (and neither of you are wrong). You're suggesting that being correct means you don't need to be a hypocrite. Be that as it may, it doesn't preclude being a hypocrite, which was his point, since he was saying that being a hypocrite doesn't necessarily make you right or wrong with regards to the subject of your hypocrisy.
For instance, suppose I made a floating, solid state, self-driving "car" that was powered by thermal variations in the air. No need for fuel stops. No emissions. No moving parts to maintain. Goes faster than an F1. Unlimited travel range. Can go across any terrain, including water. Drives itself. Dirt cheap.
But it also looks like the car equivalent of a beige computer, sounds like it's gasping for air, and has an interior that looks like an overstuffed pillow.
I might be quite correct in asserting that it'll revolutionize the world, that it's the most important invention of the century, that it can replace any practical need for a car in anyone's life...while still driving a Ferrari at home, just because I love the look, feel, and sound of the Ferrari. It doesn't mean I'm wrong about any of my claims, nor in my suggestions that the car I've created can replace any car for anyone, but just because it can do so, it doesn't mean that it will do so, nor does it mean that we might prefer for it to do so.
Quite frequently, the things that we all know are good ideas (e.g. eating well, exercising, creating less waste/consuming less) are perfectly attainable, but they can oftentimes be quite difficult to accomplish. As such, as the previous poster suggested, it's unsurprising when people make hypocrites of themselves by failing to live up the standards they've set, even though, as you said, there was no need for them to do so.
It would be nice if a wonderful rich person would offer something like $1,000,000+ in exchange for the actual identities, addresses and pictures of the Impact Team members responsible for getting and uploading the data.
Out of the 30 million account holders where almost 90% were male would love to have that information. I know I would.
I would probably then be one of the first to find one of the Impact Team members...
And once I did I would give him an impact from an aluminum baseball bat enough times to make him un-recognizable to the coroner.
Yes. The Ashley Madison subscribers are cheaters... But the Impact Team illegally stealing and outing that data - deserves even more severe punishment. Yes. I would "impact" every one of those motherfuckers if given the opportunity. They should pray they are never outed.
When are people goign to realize that the state of Privacy on the internet is DONE. SSL is broken, most security measures put in place are circumvented, Ashley Madison ( great security behemoth, we can hold ur PRIVATE data no problem) company has been hacked. HMO's, healthcare industries, the Stock market, target, ythe list goes on..
I am sure the Banks are compromised as well, either they are not telling us, or they dont know.. Either way thats a bad situation to be in..
Lets wake up people.. We have been lured by convenience and complacency, how to cut the "proverbial cord"?
Whats even more disturbing, is this issue has garnered more responses than the article abut Intel's cancer cure cloud.
an article which describes a method for medical researchers to share, collaborate, and potentially come up with a solution to one of the wolds greatest killer(our selves), has less popularity then this garbage..
Come on, Really?
There is still a distinction. Advocating for the fuel-efficient-boring-car is not the same as advocating against the Ferrari.
Mr. Duggar is actively campaigning against the very activities that he was doing, and advocating for the very thing that he was destroying in his own life and the lives of his family. I for one am judging him on the very criteria for which he has said people should be judged, but I am only judging him on that criteria, as that is his criteria.
If he didn't want his private life judged, he should have stayed out of private lives at-large.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
I wonder if this'll finally teach the post-Facebook generation not to use their real names on the internet?
(I know, I know...)
-- sudon't
Air-ride Equipped
Emphasis mine. So no, you are not just judging him for being a hypocrite for his actions, but also judging the moral position that he was failing to meet.
He deserves to be judged as imperfect, but ridiculing people because they are imperfect is, I fear, being hypocritical if one is not perfect oneself.
Yes, but as with the previous poster, the tone of your response seems to suggest disagreement, yet the point you've made is entirely orthogonal to the thing being discussed.
Just to sum up my stance while incorporating what you're talking about: a hypocrite is wrong because they've failed to live up to their own standard, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the thing they're advocating is wrong, since the rightness or wrongness of that thing is independent of the hypocrite's actions.
Which is to say, I'm not suggesting there isn't a distinction, and I would quite agree with you that if someone opens themselves up to public scrutiny and then fails to live up to that scrutiny they are deserving of being called out on their hypocrisy. That doesn't invalidate any of what I or the grandparent to my post said (i.e. the post I was defending), which is that being a hypocrite doesn't automatically make you wrong.
Hopefully that makes things clearer.
I know you intended that as a rhetorical question, but let's pretend you didn't. Have you thought about finding out the answer to that question?
Obviously, this would mean you couldn't just draw on your personal experiences and circumstances. You'd take a poll or something, getting respondent to estimate the difficulty, say on a scale of 1 to 10.
What do you predict the average 1-10 scale difficulty number will be?
From your post, I think you're saying that most people are going to give it a 1 or 2, maybe. But then there are the replies that you got, suggesting that some people (self-selected people who disagree with you and silence from those who agree) would rate it higher. Does this lead you to revise your earlier estimate?
I guess what I'm saying, is that it's pretty difficult. I think a lot of people succeed at doing it (I have) but belittling the various problems associated with it, just might be dumb.
The comment you made that started this is:
Emphasis mine. So no, you are not just judging him for being a hypocrite for his actions, but also judging the moral position that he was failing to meet.
He deserves to be judged as imperfect, but ridiculing people because they are imperfect is, I fear, being hypocritical if one is not perfect oneself.
He's a damn child molester, has admitted to it publicly and he's gotten away with it.
Not only does he deserves to be ridiculed everything he does or says, he deserves to be a in fucking prison.
Since this guy is a repeat scum ball with two daughters, I have to wonder when they're going to make it to his list.
You should, I used your name when I signed up...
Well, I'm sure glad you got that off your chest. Feel better now?
No difference. Felt great before, felt great after. Thanks for expressing your deepest and utmost sincere level of care. +
hehe... the Captcha is: repented
http://imgur.com/gJWFoAO
Or as a security measure, add lots of email addresses of celebrities and politicians and make sure that emails can be falsified so as to create deniable plausibility in the event that the database is compromised.