# Ashley Madison Hack. Thumbs up or down?



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

I'm wondering how our members feel about the Ashley Madison hack.


Do those who are now potentially exposed have it coming or is their right to privacy the most important thing here?


Personally I have little sympathy for anyone who knowingly cheats on their spouse.

http://cnews.canoe.com/CNEWS/Canada/2015/08/24/22544126.html


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

I won't make moral judgements ................. but I am truly amazed that there seems to be about a tenth of the population registered.

Am I that naive?


----------



## Guest (Aug 24, 2015)

If I cheat on my wife, it's with the Palm sisters.
Oh, they're such sluts. lol.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Milkman said:


> Personally I have little sympathy for anyone who knowingly cheats on their spouse.
> 
> http://cnews.canoe.com/CNEWS/Canada/2015/08/24/22544126.html


Yeah but those poor souls that unknowingly cheated.

- - - Updated - - -

I vote "ashley who" not because I've never heard of them but because I really don't care what someone else does if it doesn't affect me or my family. Its their business. As far as I'm concerned if they entered in to some contract with Ashley Madison for privacy then they have a right to privacy. Unfortunately when the Internet is involved no one is immune from their information being stolen. 
Of course I have no sympathy for those that were exposed. When you cheat on your spouse there is always a chance of being caught. Thats most likely some of the thrill of doing this.
I heard on the radio this morning there were 2 uncomfirmed reports of suicide related to this.


----------



## traynor_garnet (Feb 22, 2006)

The issues are really unrelated. Your (in)ability to feel sympathetic for cheaters is a separate issue from the issue of posting private info online. If this had been a list of people recently diagnosed with cancer, would people be saying 'thank god for the hackers" this is a good thing?

I seem to recall that the hackers did this to expose the site's lies about privacy; AM was warned about their security and given time to change their service. Obviously, they didn't but continued to advertize themselves a 100% confidential. The hackers real point was to challenge false confidence and corporate lies.

I applaud the warning but not the tactic since it seems like mob protection money in a weird way: you need our protection/service or else . . . Of course, the hackers didn't derive profit from this but they will get online cred and notoriety so it isn't completely different.

They should have had another group create a bunch of fake accounts and then hacked and released those profiles. This way they raise attention about the basic privacy issue without screwing with people's lives. 

TG


----------



## Chitmo (Sep 2, 2013)

Do I think cheating is okay? Nope, I love my family! But do I think invading someone's privacy, and using that information for public shaming? Nope, that's not right either! I think that it's just sad all around, now there are reports of people having committed suicide over this situation. People that may or may not have been good people that made a foolish mistake and now taken from family and friends so that someone else could impose morale judgment on them. It's just a sad situation with sad results.


----------



## Krelf (Jul 3, 2012)

My first inclination was to have no sympathy and feel that they got what they deserve. But further reflection has given me a milder sentiment. 

Every situation is different; there are people out there who are subject to abusive relationships and/or indifferent uncaring spouses. I don't condone cheating on one's partner, but some people lead loveless or painful lives and unwittingly had chosen this path as an escape.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

I voted no, just because there is most likely credit card info out there, and thats just nasty. Otherwise I dont think I would care and vote yes.............


----------



## Swervin55 (Oct 30, 2009)

I look at organizations such as AM as facilitating the erosion of society's moral fiber and therefore have no sympathy for their consequence. I will agree with others above that there are perhaps individuals caught in the crossfire that might not _deserve_ to be there and I sincerely hope for their families that they have the strength to endure.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

An Ontario fellow has launched a class action suit. He was, for a brief time, registered with them, after his wife's passing. Not sure why he chose that site, as opposed to any of the others intending to hook people up, but so be it. In any event, he thought better of it, realized it was not what he really wanted, and withdrew/deregistered. But now his information is lumped in with a bunch of other folks who don't know how to keep it in their pants.

I don't mention this to whitewash the A.M. folks, or suggest this guy is the poster child for the client list. But it bears noting that it's a big ol' complicated world, and when you decide to "punish" an organization in this manner, you can end up hurting a bunch of people who didn't deserve it.


----------



## Guitar101 (Jan 19, 2011)

Krelf said:


> My first inclination was to have no sympathy and feel that they got what they deserve. But further reflection has given me a milder sentiment.
> 
> *Every situation is different; there are people out there who are subject to abusive relationships and/or indifferent uncaring spouses. I don't condone cheating on one's partner, but some people lead loveless or painful lives and unwittingly had chosen this path as an escape.*


I voted no and can't say why any better than Krelf did after he gave it further reflection.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

I voted "Ashley Who" because until it was hacked I had absolutely no idea it existed. Sounds like there are others like it?

As for sympathy for those caught I'm afraid I have very little. If you're low enough to cheat on your spouse and stupid enough to do it online using your real name and address then all I can say is welcome to the age of social media.

I value my privacy, and do what I can to protect it, but if you're online these days it's really tough.

- - - Updated - - -



Krelf said:


> Every situation is different; there are people out there who are subject to abusive relationships and/or indifferent uncaring spouses. I don't condone cheating on one's partner, but some people lead loveless or painful lives and unwittingly had chosen this path as an escape.


I suspect the percentage of those involved for these types of reasons is pretty small but I agree with the sentiment.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

I may have to change my opinion after listening to the news just now. The fallout from this is spanning the range from blackmail to suicide.


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

I had no idea who Ashley Madison was either until this whole thing made the news recently. 

I met my current wife on "Match.com" almost 18 years ago, I played around on ICQ and IRC/MIRC before that, so I kinda know how it works. In my mind there's a difference between those people using the AM site for actually hooking up & getting laid (the purpose it was intended for), and those who were just curious, bored, window shopping, dreaming, passing the time, etc. I don't think it's fair to paint everyone with the same brush just because they are registered on the AM site. I'd be very surprised if everbody registered on that site had an affair. 25% of them maybe? Or even less?

Song playing in my head? Eagles - Lying Eyes


----------



## dago (Feb 4, 2015)

It doesn't really matter if you approve of Ashley Madison and its subscribers or not. What happened was a criminal act committed because someone chose to break the law to impose their particular world view on others, and that should concern anyone who lives in a free society. Even if you agree with that particular view, the act of forcing it on others is the problem.

I think society would be a lot better off without places like Ashley Madison and I won't miss them when they go bankrupt, but I won't go and trash their offices to force them to shut down.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Interesting replies.

I think that for a very small percentage of Ashley Madison clients, there's some excuse (sex-less marriage perhaps), but let's face it, whether or not many of them ever actually close the deal, I'd guess a very high percentage of them are simply cheating A-holes or at very least WANT to be cheating A-holes.

I understand that even A-holes have a right to privacy, but I don't have mich sympathy for them in this context.

Payback's fair enough in my opinion.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

The surprisingly high numbers in some places, like Ottawa, suggests that a certain share of accounts are likely multiple accounts for the same people, professing to like long walks in one, and heavy metal concerts in another.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

This degree of dishonesty is beyond my limits of sympathy. Expecting "honour among thieves [or name your dishonesty of choice]" is a little rich for me. Not to say that one wrong deserves another, but what the hell do people expect when they cheat? Not to be cheated? This whole thing is based on mistrust and dishonesty. The hackers, the website owners, and the clientele all took their calculated risks but miscalculated and lost. 

Boo fucking hoo.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## Guest (Aug 24, 2015)

Well. It seems that there's an out, if you're christian. lol.
A snippet from the National Post;

God forgives Christian YouTube star who used Ashley Madison

Christian YouTube star Sam Rader may be an adulterous Ashley Madison user, 
but it’s OK because his wife, and God, have forgiven him.

Hours after The Daily Mail revealed that Rader paid for an account on the affair site, 
he and his wife Nia announced, via vlog, that his transgressions were absolved.

“This was brought to my wife’s attention. She has forgiven me for this mistake that 
I have made in opening the account. I have sought forgiveness from God and he has 
forgiven me,” Rader continues. “So I have been completely cleansed of this sin.”


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

mhammer said:


> The surprisingly high numbers in some places, like Ottawa, suggests that a certain share of accounts are likely multiple accounts for the same people, professing to like long walks in one, and heavy metal concerts in another.


"There may be more liars and cheats in Ottawa you say? 

That's a big fat pitch you laid over the plate there Mark :smile-new:


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

I've always found bars worked better than the internet. It's faster and depending on the bar, more private. If you're worried, check here https://ashley.cynic.al/ to see if anything about you pops up. So far nothing shows up on the e-mail addresses that I have that the wife knows about.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

allthumbs56 said:


> "There may be more liars and cheats in Ottawa you say?
> 
> That's a big fat pitch you laid over the plate there Mark :smile-new:


Well then knock it over the left field fence, my friend! :sFun_cheerleader2:


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

**** said:


> It doesn't really matter if you approve of Ashley Madison and its subscribers or not. What happened was a criminal act committed because someone chose to break the law to impose their particular world view on others, and that should concern anyone who lives in a free society. Even if you agree with that particular view, the act of forcing it on others is the problem.
> 
> I think society would be a lot better off without places like Ashley Madison and I won't miss them when they go bankrupt, but I won't go and trash their offices to force them to shut down.


Shutting down places like AM won't do a thing. Most hook ups occur in places you would never think of.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

laristotle said:


> Well. It seems that there's an out, if you're christian. lol.
> A snippet from the National Post;
> 
> God forgives Christian YouTube star who used Ashley Madison
> ...


That reads like an article from The Onion.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

Neither hacking nor cheating is my thing, and the world would be better off without the harm both can cause.

And in this day & age we should know that anything we put online is not safe & secure.


----------



## fredyfreeloader (Dec 11, 2010)

laristotle said:


> Well. It seems that there's an out, if you're christian. lol.
> A snippet from the National Post;
> 
> God forgives Christian YouTube star who used Ashley Madison
> ...


This Rader guy is as full of shit as a four thousand pound canary. What a prick, I was going to say prize prick but he sure ain't no prize.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

no sympathy for them regardless. you spins the wheel, you takes yer chances. you do a thing, you reap what you sow in some cases. do i feel bad some killed themselves? not even a little bit. just another example of _selfish people who won't take responsibility for their own actions_. when you marry, you made a promise, and signed a contract. there is no excuse for cheaters, period. i had a bad marriage before. i didn't cheat. i had plenty of opportunity, and with way hotter women than she was. i made a promise and i kept it. because that's what being a man is. some of you know it's not easy keeping your word & doing the right thing. but you do it anyway, because easy or not, it's what's right.

this reminds me of my buddy ron back in the states. he would have a nite smoking crack with my buddies who did that. they'd spend piles of money and smoke that shit all nite. at some point he'd start asking to suck somebodies dick. then after the high wore off he'd say "hey don't tell anyone ok? i only did that cause i was soooo high" the one time i was there when he did that with this other guy marty. he used the same line - hey guys, don't tell anybody i sucked off marty. oh no you don't ron. i'm tellin everyone. if you do it, own it and deal with it.


----------



## whywhyzed (Jan 28, 2008)

the data was pretty old. Not everyone "outed" was cheating on a current spouse. The majority were probably just girl watching. Those that were hooking up coulda been in open relationships. I feel sorry for those hacked. I looked through the .on.ca list. All college students. No government employees. The media folk are not doing their homework.


----------



## Krelf (Jul 3, 2012)

cheezyridr said:


> no sympathy for them regardless. you spins the wheel, you takes yer chances. you do a thing, you reap what you sow in some cases. do i feel bad some killed themselves? not even a little bit. just another example of _selfish people who won't take responsibility for their own actions_. when you marry, you made a promise, and signed a contract. there is no excuse for cheaters, period. i had a bad marriage before. i didn't cheat. i had plenty of opportunity, and with way hotter women than she was. i made a promise and i kept it. because that's what being a man is. some of you know it's not easy keeping your word & doing the right thing. but you do it anyway, because easy or not, it's what's right.
> 
> this reminds me of my buddy ron back in the states. he would have a nite smoking crack with my buddies who did that. they'd spend piles of money and smoke that shit all nite. at some point he'd start asking to suck somebodies dick. then after the high wore off he'd say "hey don't tell anyone ok? i only did that cause i was soooo high" the one time i was there when he did that with this other guy marty. he used the same line - hey guys, don't tell anybody i sucked off marty. oh no you don't ron. i'm tellin everyone. if you do it, own it and deal with it.


Yes, If you own it, deal with it. A good point indeed. I'll remember the story of ron and marty every time I wish to make that point. My wife and I are going to a cocktail party next week and I'm sure the whole issue of Ashley Madison will come up. Great to have an anecdote like that to explain my point of view!


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

The bulleted summary of news clippings on the topic in this morning's government survey of headlines. The cryptic "stock quotations" have an abbreviation of the publication and page number, or network and timestamp. You'll forgive the wonky formatting. It's clipped from a PDF and doesn't necessarily do what you tell it to do when pasting occurs.*
*****************************************************************
Cybersecurity / Ashley Madison Leak 
*Several sources, including front-page articles, reported on the update given by *Toronto Police *regarding their *investigation into the Ashley Madison data leak *(CTV-N 6h09, CBC-r 7h33, NP A1, NP A2, TStar A1, TStar A8, G&M A3, TorSun 3, VanSun B3, CalHer A2, CalHer B6, Gaz A11, Cit C2, HalCH A9, NP A10, Sol 18, Nouv 25, Dev A1, A8, Dr 17, AcNouv 20, VoixEst 23, RDI 6h, SRC-r 6h). 
 Reports noted that police say there have been two unconfirmed reports of suicides linked to the leak, and the company that owns Ashley Madison is offering a $500,000 reward for information leading to the arrests of members of the *Impact Team*.
 Reports also noted that police have issued a warning about scam websites offering to erase personal information, and other online scams targeting people whose profiles were leaked and demanding money. 
_The Toronto Star_, _The Chronicle-Herald _and _The Globe and Mail _noted that the *Office of the Privacy Commissioner *said it is investigating the security breach along with international partners (G&M A3, TStar A8, HalCH A9). 
Other reports noted that* the FBI*, the *RCMP*, the *OPP *and *US Homeland Security *are also investigating the breach. 
_Postmedia _sources drew attention to the security breach being seen as a crime committed in *Canada *because the company’s headquarters are located in Toronto, and according to the *Convention on Cybercrime *it is a crime because the computers are on Canadian soil. 
 These sources also stated that the hackers appeared to take issue with the website’s mandate to "facilitate affairs."  
Cybersecurity analyst *John McAfee *told _CTV News _that he is "100%" sure that the hack was an inside job because after his own investigation his team found that the alleged hackers had "intimate" knowledge of the company’s programs and sequence of use, floor plans and had data from the CEO’s office. He also said that it was the work of an "angry" individual, most likely a female due to the messaging found directed at men in the files (CTV-N 6h33). 
_CTV News _legal analyst *Steven Skurka *discussed the types of charges the hackers would face, the principal one being theft of data. He said along with the theft there is a "series of criminal activity here" including blackmail, extortion, and hate crimes. He also noted that it would be "an uphill climb" to succeed in the lawsuit against the company (CTV-N 7h12). 
Articles about the Ashley Madison breach trended this morning, garnering a total over *20,000 social media *interactions (NP, CBC, Gbl, LaPr, G&M, Yahoo, TStar). 
Some sources noted that the Office of the Privacy Commissioner is conducting an independent investigation into the issue.


----------



## Hamstrung (Sep 21, 2007)

Their new slogan should be "You wanted to get fucked.... you're fucked!"


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

Krelf said:


> Yes, If you own it, deal with it. A good point indeed. I'll remember the story of ron and marty every time I wish to make that point. My wife and I are going to a cocktail party next week and I'm sure the whole issue of Ashley Madison will come up. Great to have an anecdote like that to explain my point of view!


i've got tons of that stuff. let me know anytime you might need something.


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

The following article comes from a place that doesn't always get things right. But imagine if it's true! Toronto police recently stated that Ashley Madison was "not criminally responsible" for the release of its data but if this article is accurate, might it be criminally responsible for something else?

https://boingboing.net/2015/08/26/ashley-madison-looks-like-it-w.html


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

boyscout said:


> The following article comes from a place that doesn't always get things right. But imagine if it's true! Toronto police recently stated that Ashley Madison was "not criminally responsible" for the release of its data but if this article is accurate, might it be criminally responsible for something else?
> 
> https://boingboing.net/2015/08/26/ashley-madison-looks-like-it-w.html


Rings truer than anything else I've read about the site.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Columnist Dan Savage had some interesting things to say about it. Worth a listen. http://www.cbc.ca/radio/q/schedule-...hack-is-not-a-black-and-white-issue-1.3204161


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

allthumbs56 said:


> Rings truer than anything else I've read about the site.


Yup! I just got around to reading the Gizmodo article on which the Boing Boing article was based. Gizmodo is a more-reliable source IMO.

http://gizmodo.com/almost-none-of-the-women-in-the-ashley-madison-database-1725558944

In any other endeavor the lawsuits would be starting to fly. Maybe some will anyway, from guys who won't lose more by going public against them. I almost wish I'd joined - my wife wouldn't dump me if I told her nothing happened, and we'd have a chance at a nice vacation fund courtesy of the site that's been collecting... how many millions per month in what may be a giant scam?


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

mhammer said:


> Columnist Dan Savage had some interesting things to say about it. Worth a listen. http://www.cbc.ca/radio/q/schedule-...hack-is-not-a-black-and-white-issue-1.3204161


Thanks Mark. For those who have removed Adobe Flash as a security risk and can't listen to the CBC interview Mark linked above, here are a couple of links related to Dan Savage and Ashley Madison:

http://www.thestranger.com/blogs/sl...nd-puritanical-games-until-somebody-gets-dead

http://www.thestranger.com/blogs/slog/2015/08/25/22756209/letters-from-ashley-madison-users

Here's more comment from Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who helped bring Edward Snowdon's story to the world.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/08/20/puritanical-glee-ashley-madison-hack/

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/08/24/email-ashley-madison-user/


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

They're hackers. I've lost a lot of time/money to hackers, so I put them just below child molesters. 

There's a group right now working BC, pretending to be the CRA and scamming lots of people (mostly elderly) out of money. Maybe scammers are not hackers, but I put them in the say bus. And push it over a very large cliff. Death to them all!


On the other hand, if you are having a _secret affair_ and publishing it on a website you have no control over, well, not too bright, IMO.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

High/Deaf said:


> They're hackers. I've lost a lot of time/money to hackers, so I put them just below child molesters.


In my mind nothing would be lower than a child molester.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Sorry, I have no sympathy for the subscribers and their sob stories about loveless marriages and doing it for the children or dying spouses or whatever.

After two failed marriages I have some experience with this crap and in my opinion, you do what you do *AND YOU OWN IT*. If you don't like something then change it - but do it straight up and honourable. There is no justification for deceiving another person.


----------



## bolero (Oct 11, 2006)

I'm in the "who cares" camp


----------



## butterknucket (Feb 5, 2006)

Someone close to me caught their common law using that site a few years ago.

It didn't end well.....


----------



## Guest (Aug 28, 2015)

I have sympathy for the people who had their data exposed. Privacy is privacy and it looks like this site was doing all kinds of bad things, not just around security, but around data retention and making promises of expunging data (for a fee no less!) and then not upholding those promises.

I have no sympathy for the company. You play fast and lose with people's personal information and sooner or later you're going to get pwned and then you'd better have a fat stack of cash sitting around to pay off the inevitable law suits. I hope this sinks them.

Also, it looks like their actual user base was largely being duped by the company: https://boingboing.net/2015/08/26/ashley-madison-looks-like-it-w.html -- that's a fascinating look at the data, really. Something we wouldn't have otherwise seen without the hack: the whole thing was a total shill. As the article says:



> Here's what Ashley Madison is: a swizz. You pay up to "have an affair", you get strung along for a while, you realize the site is garbage, then you pay the "fee" to have your data deleted. They don't even do that, because why would they? Then everyone gets exposed, because they never had any real interest or competence in keeping user data secure.


From a social engineering standpoint, it's fascinating, really. This is site that was actively advertised all over the place. Has existed for years. Was able to extort people on their way _in_ to its network and on the way _out_! Really, really fascinating.

The morality of the website in question and whether people should have been using it or not is largely uninteresting to me. People do all kinds of things I don't give a shit about, this being one of them.


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

I remember working at Bombardier years ago and reading AM's 1 page ad in the SUN stating that they had to legally divulge everyone's information.

The date on the paper was April 1st. That was classic.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

guitarman2 said:


> In my mind nothing would be lower than a child molester.


Ooops, that's what I meant. They are just below a child molester, if you put a child molester at the top of the list of scum out there, which I do. Yea, child molesters are worse.


----------



## Guitar101 (Jan 19, 2011)

_Yes, they're lying sacks of dung = 9_
_No, they're only human and have their right to privacy = 19_
_Ashley who = 9_

45 posts in so lets recap, we have:

9 people that are perfect and have never made a mistake.
19 people that use a little common sense and think before they type.
9 people that never watch or read the daily news and spend most of their time on this forum.

Whoops . . . did I say that out loud?:stirpot:


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Guitar101 said:


> _Yes, they're lying sacks of dung = 9_
> _No, they're only human and have their right to privacy = 19_
> _Ashley who = 8_
> 
> ...


Interesting perspective.

But

Having no sympathy for those who deliberately seek to cheat on the one they've vowed to be faithful to does not = I am perfect and have never made a mistake.

Seems like you're more perfect than the "9" as you obviously have common sense where the 9 don't.


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

If you want to be married....be married....enter into that contract and live by it.

If you don't want to be married, don't, if you are, get out and then move on

You can't be both at the same time.

If you have that little regard for the person you are supposed to be committed to, how do you expect for anyone else to have any regard towards you and how you feel? You have already crossed the line of decency, don't complain that others went with you......people in glass houses, etc. You got cheated on trying to cheat.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

Well I was one of the last group. I voted that way because up until the outrage I had never heard of Ashley Maddison. Does that make me a hermit? I don't believe so.



Guitar101 said:


> _Yes, they're lying sacks of dung = 9_
> _No, they're only human and have their right to privacy = 19_
> _Ashley who = 9_
> 
> ...


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

I voted Ashley who? also....

I have seen their ads on TV and think it is in poor taste. I am not married (I don't need any outside permission to love and commit to someone and I tell it to her, the important one), but in a committed relationship for over 20 years. If that is not your cup of tea, then I agree with you, for you. If you believe in marriage, more power to you, but don't be a hypocrite. A.M. is telling you that your vows, and your word, is not worth anything. Is that true? I believe that what you do is far more indicative of your character than what you say. In that vein, don't complain if you get caught doing something you are not supposed to be doing in the first place.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Jim DaddyO said:


> I voted Ashley who? also....
> 
> I have seen their ads on TV and think it is in poor taste. I am not married (I don't need any outside permission to love and commit to someone and I tell it to her, the important one), but in a committed relationship for over 20 years. If that is not your cup of tea, then I agree with you, for you. If you believe in marriage, more power to you, but don't be a hypocrite. A.M. is telling you that your vows, and your word, is not worth anything. Is that true? I believe that what you do is far more indicative of your character than what you say. In that vein, don't complain if you get caught doing something you are not supposed to be doing in the first place.


But what about all those "sexual victims"? Those who can justify their actions for the _*sake of the children*_?


----------



## Guest (Aug 28, 2015)

Jim DaddyO said:


> You can't be both at the same time.


Sure you can. Marriage is, ultimately, what two partners decide it should be and no one else. The state gets a say for tax and benefit reasons, but really, that's about it.



> If you have that little regard for the person you are supposed to be committed to, how do you expect for anyone else to have any regard towards you and how you feel? You have already crossed the line of decency, don't complain that others went with you......people in glass houses, etc. You got cheated on trying to cheat.


Decency is _very_ subjective. Very, very subjective. Some might thing sex in any position other than missionary is indecent, others might just call it a fun Saturday night. Who are you to impose your measures of decency on others? Or me for that matter?


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

allthumbs56 said:


> But what about all those "sexual victims"? Those who can justify their actions for the _*sake of the children*_?


lol....sarcasm noted, here's more.....I am sure little Bobby and Sue are totally and blissfully unaware that the marriage went south and are heeding the lesson of staying in a place where you are being hurt instead of being an independent person with boundaries and limits. I am also sure that that is the lesson we want all our children to learn....to be untrusting and untrustworthy.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

Does anyone think these people wouldn't have cheated without AM involvement? That AM manipulated them into straying by advertising, or just being there?

I suppose that's possible, but it would be in the vast minority, IMO. People do what they do - this is just a 'boost pedal', if you will.


----------



## dago (Feb 4, 2015)

High/Deaf said:


> People do what they do - this is just a 'boost pedal', if you will.


Actually, since it looks there were almost no actual women on AM, more of a mute switch or attenuator.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

High/Deaf said:


> Does anyone think these people wouldn't have cheated without AM involvement? That AM manipulated them into straying by advertising, or just being there?
> 
> I suppose that's possible, but it would be in the vast minority, IMO. People do what they do - this is just a 'boost pedal', if you will.


Actually many of them probably wouldn't have cheated either way. It's more like conspiracy to commit adultry than actual adultry.

As it seems like there are very few women on the site, I'd say the men on there are only getting Eastern European dream girls, and even then, they're still dreaming.


----------



## Guest (Aug 28, 2015)

Milkman said:


> I'd say the men on there are only getting Eatern European dream girls, and even then, they're still dreaming.


Nah, you just have to answer the 'hey, I seen your pic on FB. 
I think you're cute' e-mails that come in your junk folder.


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

iaresee said:


> Sure you can. Marriage is, ultimately, what two partners decide it should be and no one else. The state gets a say for tax and benefit reasons, but really, that's about it.
> 
> 
> 
> Decency is _very_ subjective. Very, very subjective. Some might thing sex in any position other than missionary is indecent, others might just call it a fun Saturday night. Who are you to impose your measures of decency on others? Or me for that matter?


That is getting kind of nit picking and hair splitting.....if it is an act that both agree to, OK, but then why the secrecy being advertised then? If it is out in the open and both partners are into that kind of life style, that is their choice, I don't have a problem with it (actually, I don't care much how anyone lives their life as long as they are doing no harm to others). It makes me wonder why you would go through the rites of marriage and oath some sort of fidelity and commitment.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

iaresee said:


> Sure you can. Marriage is, ultimately, what two partners decide it should be and no one else. The state gets a say for tax and benefit reasons, but really, that's about it.
> 
> 
> 
> Decency is _very_ subjective. Very, very subjective. Some might thing sex in any position other than missionary is indecent, others might just call it a fun Saturday night. Who are you to impose your measures of decency on others? Or me for that matter?


I don't know of any code of ethics or decency that allows for outright lying and deceit between two beople who have made a commitment (vows if you like) to remain monogomous to each other.

I think that's stretching things a wee bit.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

its highly judgemental vigilanteism, performed by people usually on the wrong side of the law. I cant see any way to support this.
Has more in common with Unabomber than Robin Hood.

theres got to be better ways that they can use their "talents' to "save the world".


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Diablo said:


> its highly judgemental vigilanteism, performed by people usually on the wrong side of the law. I cant see any way to support this.
> Has more in common with Unabomber than Robin Hood.
> 
> theres got to be better ways that they can use their "talents' to "save the world".


I actually agree with this.

While I have little sympathy for those who set out deliberately to cheat, I also have little love for hackers.

In this case it was cheaters, but often that's not the case with hackers.


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

Oh, the other part of the situation....not a fan of hackers.....


----------



## Guitar101 (Jan 19, 2011)

I can't believe that some of you even took the time to look at the stuff the hackers posted. I didn't even try to find it and couldn't care less if my neighbors name was on the list.


----------



## BMW-KTM (Apr 7, 2015)

There is no voting option for me to click on. 
My vote could only possibly be for one thing; "Two wrongs don't make a right."
The cheating spouses and the hackers should all answer for what they've done.


----------



## Lola (Nov 16, 2014)

Chitmo said:


> Do I think cheating is okay? Nope, I love my family! But do I think invading someone's privacy, and using that information for public shaming? Nope, that's not right either! I think that it's just sad all around, now there are reports of people having committed suicide over this situation. People that may or may not have been good people that made a foolish mistake and now taken from family and friends so that someone else could impose morale judgment on them. It's just a sad situation with sad results.


I couldn't of said it any better!


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

The Gizmodo analysis of the leaked data suggests very strongly that only a tiny fraction of the site's female "members" were actually real people, and that roughly 99.8% were fabricated profiles, generated by Ashley Madison employees, in an attempt to entice male registrants that they had a good shot at carnal pleasure.

The timing of the leak is interesting, because AM was poised to make an initial public offering to potential investors, and was rumoured to be on the verge of having something like $200M pumped into the company.

Of course, with the CEO stepping down, the outing of clients, and the revelation that one probably stood a better chance of scoring an outside shtup by hanging around the produce section in Loblaws or Kroger than by giving your money to AM, it is pretty well dead as an enterprise.

Live by the sword, die by the sword, I guess.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

mhammer said:


> The Gizmodo analysis of the leaked data suggests very strongly that only a tiny fraction of the site's female "members" were actually real people, and that roughly 99.8% were fabricated profiles, generated by Ashley Madison employees, in an attempt to entice male registrants that they had a good shot at carnal pleasure..


[video=youtube;Lw3P4d4w1nI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lw3P4d4w1nI[/video]


----------

