Why does almost everyone posting here seem to think that having an affair leads inevitably to marriage breakdown and divorce?
Surely for a lot of people it just acts as a temporary safety valve and after their fling(s) they carry on quite happily? And if the spouse turns a temporary blind eye, what's the harm?
The notion that you should be 100% honest all the time seems ridiculously naive to me. How do you deal with idiots at work or annoying relatives or kids asking if Santa Claus is real at Xmas?
And if you end up stuck in an unhappy marriage/relationship with kids, there is no real happy ending for everyone involved anyway.
The people behind the site appear to also run other sites that promote prostitution and human trafficking
But the "mission statement" of the hackers appears to treat this as the equivalent of websites for arranging affairs, gay dating or overweight dating.
There is an obvious moral difference, and in any case surely a website promoting human trafficking should just be prosecuted anyway, since that is actually illegal?
The information you have on AM would be perfect for blackmail. And I'm sure you can find some rather large and high-powered people to whom the release of information like that could be deadly - either professionally or politically.
I was going to say that you'd have to be stupid to use a dodgy website like this if you really were "high-powered", but then again (a) you can be rich and famous and stupid, and (b) a lot of highly successful people probably can't imagine being caught out by some pleb.
I don't think her schtick could be that entertaining at $200/hr. For that kind of money you can get a pretty, bikini-clad woman with a stripper pole to come fix your pc.
You can change your mind and take amputation later
Ability to change your mind is a great idea..... especially if you can grow an entirely brand new body and have your mind transferred to the new body through a simple process, with your choice of keeping or changing your physical appearance, that would be ideal.
It would be even better if this mind transfer could be done almost entirely in "software", so only select physical parts of your brain actually need to move at a time, and essentially, your mind and body will be completely replaced with new cells, but you'll retain every memory and all knowledge and such you had before, even if your newly built body is 30 years younger than the one you are changing mind from.
I'm sure this will be a matter of routine within twenty years or so. You'll be able to 3D print a new body and download your mind/personality into it as easy as installing an operating system from a thumb drive.
As a bonus, our new cyborg bodies will be powered by cold fusion so we'll be able to live on Mars (or in Interstellar Space) indefinitely without needing any external life support or human contact.
I care little for hosting illegal and exploitative content -- but it was nice to have a venue where controversial subjects could be broached and discussed.
Yeah, you've only got the other 99.999999% of the internet to use. Literally Hitler.
So, the result is that we must allow "vile" speech even if it is distasteful. THAT is the most ethical way to proceed. Anything less than that is simply vile censorship;)
Look, no one is saying that it should be a criminal offence to insult Barack Obama or fat people, or whoever. You can be as vile as you like. But you can't expect everyone to give you a platform for your vileness, and say that if they won't they oppose free speech and are evil because censorship.
A site like reddit is perfectly entitled to say that being associated with borderline child porn, stalking, hate speech or whatever they like is wrong and you'll have to go elsewhere to say it.. They're not the government.
So free speech for anyone who can afford to buy themselves some, then?
While this is true to some extent, fortunately the internet has made the barriers for entry so low as to be effectively zero.
But if you're, say, the proprietor of a national newspaper, you most certainly have more weight and volume of free speech than a teenager in his bedroom posting on a forum with three users.
Localized censorship is still censorship. Eg you might think you're being censored if you live in North Korea, but since you can always move to a different website/country then you're not being censored -- except there's a limit to how much trouble people will go through to express their views
The point about North Korea is that (a) it is the government doing the censoring and (b) no you can't move to a different website/country if you're locked up in a labour camp.
Whereas, if someone takes away your/r/paedophileracistsagainstwhales sub-reddit you can find a million other places on the internet to post your interesting ideas. With little effort and no money.
I am actually glad there is a place where kiddie diddlers can discuss kiddie diddling. Not because I engage in that, or in any way approve or condone it, but because it is in line with the ideals and philosophy behind our Bill of Rights
And equally, I am free to avoid those places. And if they are associated with a particular website (say by being a sub-site) I am also free to avoid that particular main website altogether.
Not supporting something is not the same as banning it.
The problem is that people who are angry with reddit on this are saying that it is morally wrong for anyone to censor anything, and are trying to say that exercising editorial discretion is censorship. They then extend this to say that anyone who opposes this total freedom is against "free speech", as though it's an either/or thing.
I agree that racists and paedophiles should be allowed to write whatever rubbish they want without facing imprisonment by the government. Apart from that, I hope that no one listens to them at all.
To "censor" is to review something and to choose to remove or hide parts of it that are considered unacceptable.
But by that definition, if I write an essay advocating anarchist revolution to a conservative newspaper and they decide not to publish it in full on their letters page, they are "censoring" me.
Slashdot Mirror
Easier said than done, to be sure.
Pro Tip: Make the decision not to cheat before you begin any relationship. Once in a relationship, learn to not let your eyes wander.
if there's one thing I visit slashdot for, it's relationship advice from the experts.
The Puritanism is strong in this thread.
Surely for a lot of people it just acts as a temporary safety valve and after their fling(s) they carry on quite happily? And if the spouse turns a temporary blind eye, what's the harm?
The notion that you should be 100% honest all the time seems ridiculously naive to me. How do you deal with idiots at work or annoying relatives or kids asking if Santa Claus is real at Xmas?
And if you end up stuck in an unhappy marriage/relationship with kids, there is no real happy ending for everyone involved anyway.
It's pure, 100% evil.
You set a pretty low bar for evil in a world where there are ISIL, paedophiles, genocides, rapists, murderers and Donald Trump.
Us unmarried folks get to fuck anyone we want
Says someone who has never had even a vaguely serious relationship without getting married.
The people behind the site appear to also run other sites that promote prostitution and human trafficking
But the "mission statement" of the hackers appears to treat this as the equivalent of websites for arranging affairs, gay dating or overweight dating.
There is an obvious moral difference, and in any case surely a website promoting human trafficking should just be prosecuted anyway, since that is actually illegal?
The information you have on AM would be perfect for blackmail. And I'm sure you can find some rather large and high-powered people to whom the release of information like that could be deadly - either professionally or politically.
I was going to say that you'd have to be stupid to use a dodgy website like this if you really were "high-powered", but then again (a) you can be rich and famous and stupid, and (b) a lot of highly successful people probably can't imagine being caught out by some pleb.
I don't think her schtick could be that entertaining at $200/hr. For that kind of money you can get a pretty, bikini-clad woman with a stripper pole to come fix your pc.
In fact, forget the stripper pole and bikini.
Well that de-escalated quickly.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke
So this so-called witch is really an alien from an advanced civilization?
a (very) famous attractive Hollywood actress and I had a fun night together
You stayed in alone with a bottle of cheap vodka and watched one of her films on Netflix, you mean?
Not everyone can become a professional sportsman, whereas anyone can work in tech.
When the company could not produce documentation of written warnings the company was ordered to pay the person two years salary in compensation.
If a company can't follow basic HR procedures, it's hard to feel any sympathy for them.
Women like to help. They'll help people, animals, forests, the environment, etc. But in general, they're not interested in working with machines.
And you wonder why women don't want to work in engineering? Hint: it's people like you.
Is all attendance at secure mental units voluntary? What about One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest?
After the transfer, what are you going to do with your old body?
Have sex with it, then eat it.
You can change your mind and take amputation later
Ability to change your mind is a great idea..... especially if you can grow an entirely brand new body and have your mind transferred to the new body through a simple process, with your choice of keeping or changing your physical appearance, that would be ideal.
It would be even better if this mind transfer could be done almost entirely in "software", so only select physical parts of your brain actually need to move at a time, and essentially, your mind and body will be completely replaced with new cells, but you'll retain every memory and all knowledge and such you had before, even if your newly built body is 30 years younger than the one you are changing mind from.
I'm sure this will be a matter of routine within twenty years or so. You'll be able to 3D print a new body and download your mind/personality into it as easy as installing an operating system from a thumb drive.
As a bonus, our new cyborg bodies will be powered by cold fusion so we'll be able to live on Mars (or in Interstellar Space) indefinitely without needing any external life support or human contact.
I care little for hosting illegal and exploitative content -- but it was nice to have a venue where controversial subjects could be broached and discussed.
Yeah, you've only got the other 99.999999% of the internet to use. Literally Hitler.
if you post a photo to social media and someone that's been given access to see the photo shares it, that's not 'stealing' in my book.
I'm not sure if anyone's ever mentioned it before on slashdot, but copying any digital object isn't technically stealing
So, the result is that we must allow "vile" speech even if it is distasteful. THAT is the most ethical way to proceed. Anything less than that is simply vile censorship ;)
Look, no one is saying that it should be a criminal offence to insult Barack Obama or fat people, or whoever. You can be as vile as you like. But you can't expect everyone to give you a platform for your vileness, and say that if they won't they oppose free speech and are evil because censorship.
A site like reddit is perfectly entitled to say that being associated with borderline child porn, stalking, hate speech or whatever they like is wrong and you'll have to go elsewhere to say it.. They're not the government.
So free speech for anyone who can afford to buy themselves some, then?
While this is true to some extent, fortunately the internet has made the barriers for entry so low as to be effectively zero.
But if you're, say, the proprietor of a national newspaper, you most certainly have more weight and volume of free speech than a teenager in his bedroom posting on a forum with three users.
Localized censorship is still censorship. Eg you might think you're being censored if you live in North Korea, but since you can always move to a different website/country then you're not being censored -- except there's a limit to how much trouble people will go through to express their views
The point about North Korea is that (a) it is the government doing the censoring and (b) no you can't move to a different website/country if you're locked up in a labour camp.
Whereas, if someone takes away your /r/paedophileracistsagainstwhales sub-reddit you can find a million other places on the internet to post your interesting ideas. With little effort and no money.
I am actually glad there is a place where kiddie diddlers can discuss kiddie diddling. Not because I engage in that, or in any way approve or condone it, but because it is in line with the ideals and philosophy behind our Bill of Rights
And equally, I am free to avoid those places. And if they are associated with a particular website (say by being a sub-site) I am also free to avoid that particular main website altogether.
Not supporting something is not the same as banning it.
I agree that racists and paedophiles should be allowed to write whatever rubbish they want without facing imprisonment by the government. Apart from that, I hope that no one listens to them at all.
To "censor" is to review something and to choose to remove or hide parts of it that are considered unacceptable.
But by that definition, if I write an essay advocating anarchist revolution to a conservative newspaper and they decide not to publish it in full on their letters page, they are "censoring" me.