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.
They paid to get screwed.
Seems they are getting their money's worth.
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...
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.
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.
https://thepiratebay.la/torren...
- In Soviet Korea, only old people loose all their bases to Natalie Portman's petrified hot grits overlords.
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 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.
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.
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.
...except 3% of mammal species and 90% of birds (Reichard, Barash & Lipton).
In almost all cases, monogamy seems to be a (successful) survival strategy where multiple births are relatively uncommon in nonsocial animals (ie birds where young are raised in clutches of three to five by one or both parents with no help from any other member of the species).
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
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.
Marriage exists precisely because humans are not naturally monogamous. If humans naturally mated for life, what advantage would there be in codifying the pair bonding in law, both as a commitment between two people and a commitment from the community (to police their union either socially or legally)? Naturally bonded humans would view marriage licenses and adultery laws like we would view laws telling people that they must eat food if they want to live.
But recognizing that humans are not naturally monogamous doesn't excuse cheating behavior; it only explains it.
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.
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});
Ashley Madison found herself leaking as she glimpsed the manly figures of the passing pirates. She had to concentrate at her best to cover the movement of her slightly trebling thighs. Her governor father already had his concerns, as Ashley had danced little too close to her partner during the last ball of the forts mansion and caused a little social scandal, an accomplishment in such a distant Caribbean island, far away from his majesty's court.
The governor's carriage bumped on a pebble road as it approached the fort's entrance. The feeling Ashley felt was almost overwhelming. Every bump made Ashley think the curving backs, behinds and narrow waists of the pirates and the tension grew even further. Ashley's breathing deepened, her lips and cheeks got slightly more colorful, visible even through all that powder her chamber maid had applied at her at the same morning.
As group of soldiers were trying the play a game of cricket at the court yard, as the carriages turned into the entrance of the fort. The governor retorted "What a bunch of hackers!" and jumped out of the moving carriages to teach his soldiers some lessons in the game of gentlemen. Ashley could only see the wide bats and the balls at the ground and at the hands of the players. She convulsed and came in the carriage like she never had before.
People are different. As you get older you'll start to understand this.
> 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.
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.
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
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.
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...
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.
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."
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
I think he's looking for the .onion site address. Isn't it kind of weird that none of these articles published that? At least, none of the ones I've seen.
-- 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.
The responses lead me to think that I have highly overestimated how many people place any value on a virtue like honest y.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.