It's all quiet...Must be negotations between hackers and company... Company will do anything to squash this as the IPO is gonna get canceled and that's not good for shareholders.
I get that and the majority of users probably are cheating on their spouses. But it's a site to get laid and you don't actually have to be attached to use it. The fact is innocent people WILL get harmed. And it's ironic that the same people bitching about the government spying on them is okay with random hackers stealing people's personal info.
Ashley Madison, Farmers Only, How About, "You don't have to be lonely, at Socially-Maladjusted Hermes.Com?" Come on you get rich quick Silicon Valley types..... you're not trying hard enough!
The site's motto is "life is short, have an affair." They may not verify that the users are in a relationship but the clear intimation that users are purporting is that either they are in a relationship or they are looking for someone who is in a relationship that wants to get laid outside of it and they are interested in being that participant. Either way, they aren't victims, they are participants in the deception that there is a real victim to - the other party of the relationship being cheated on. The repercussions for the behavior isn't always direct. This is an indirect way that they are going to get their just desserts for their actions. You have yet to suggest any scenario where the members are victims that deserve sympathy.
Am I the only one who has even looked at the site since this came out? On the main page, it asks for your relationship status and two options are "Single Male seeking Females" and "Single Female seeking Males". The fact that this is an option implies there are people on that site who were single when they registered. And when those people's names are exposed, no one is going to ask if they were single when they were on the site. They are going to do EXACTLY what you are doing and just assume they are cheating assholes because apparently there's no other option.
Who made you the moral police? Just because you dont agree doesnt make you a vetter person. People have affairs for various reasons. Hell sometimes they use the site for the purpose of finding someone to add. Another major point people arent discussing about that site tho, how many of the people are actually real? Hell or actually still available in real life? Sites like that often let you sign up for free, but people don't want to pay. The site however will use peoples info to lure others in, even tho theyre not real or actually using the site. A tactic used by match.com. Its very deceptive. Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
So you want to place fault on the sites for being deceptive but dispute my criticism of the users for being deceptive? You should have thought out your argument a little better before framing it around the position that I was being the moral police when you have just as much issues with deception as I do. Who made you the moral police? That's a basic ad hominem -- attack the arguer instead of the argument, and in commuting it you inherently are arguing that you have some authority on morality to dispute your perception of my morality otherwise you'd have no basis to even ask that question. And that doesn't even address the fact that it was completely irrelevant because I made no moral judgement at all by simply pointing out that by their deception doesn't qualify them to being victims if that deception is revealed. Beyond that, morality isn't opinion, it has a well established meaning that can be applied to people's actions. It isn't policing morals if deception fits into the established criteria of lack of moral behavior. Identifying that in no way, shape or form is an opinion that would then validate your description of doing so as being a moral police. You have an issue with the concept if morals which I certainly did not create or enforce simply by believing being deceptive disqualifies them from being victims.
Im not playing blame on anyone. Cuz frankly what they do in their time is there business and not yours to judge them. That's the point. The other was a criticism of there business model. Maybe you need to up your reading comprehension skills Don't like what they do? Don't go there its just that simple. But take your moral righteous bullshit and spew it to subdue who cares. Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Nothing I stated could remotely be interpreted that my argument would result on the mis perception that the single party was cheating on a spouse. My post acknowledged that single people can be on the site because they are looking to be the partner to a spouse looking to have an affair. The two options you stated reveal that, they don't defend your interpretation that singles are using it to hook up not as a participant to an affair. Note that it asks "single male seeking female" not "single male seeking single female." Why would they make specific reference to one participant in the hook up being single but not the other?Clearly pointing out one being single has meaning so not stating it for the other has meaning as well -- that second participate isn't single. When taken in the obvious context of the site's brand clearly being about affairs, then you see those options are a device to allow the married user to connect with a single user, thus the affair takes place regardless if one isn't cheating on a spouse. But make no mistake , the single participant is participating in an affair even if they aren't cheating on a spouse themselves. Did you not even attempt to think through the meaning of those options before using them to validate my argument? The site is about setting up affairs, which only requires one of the two people to be in the marriage or relationship, so one partner being single doesn't make it a site where singles are using it to meet other singles as you attempted to imply.
I didn't say I liked or disliked it, I merely pointed out the fact that they were being deceptive and the real victims of their deception of the affair is the spouse , not them if the the affair is revealed. Your entire argument, which again is an illogical ad hominem, not only doesn't address my argument but requires you to argue against something that isn't even there -- your claim that I am judging them. That's your second logical fallacy in your argument, a Strawman. Nothing about you argument has any merit. It's a Strawman then defended by an ad hominem. Can you just try and not commit a logical fallacy in your next reply.
Regardless if you agree with the website or not, I don't understand the sympathy for those looking to cheat. Not to mention the moronic thought process these people have in letting their affairs be datamined and leaving that information out on the website. Whether you think it's a question of morals or not, how can you feel sorry for them? Whether spouses find out through hackers or when their husband is banging a 24 year old chick in the minivan is their any doubt that they'll find out? I'd guess the majority of affairs these days are revealed through e-mail discoveries or a paper trail left on the internet. In my eyes they ruined their relationships the minute they decided to have an affair. How the spouse finds out doesn't matter because they almost always find out. Anyone who tries to play it off as a typical dating site needs to do their research. There are TONS of dating sites that don't encourage cheating. This might be the only one I am aware of that does encourage it and initial creation was to help people do it discretely.
Again youre passing judgement on people you know nothing about. Theres nothing illogical about that. If you cant see this, then theres a problem. You have no idea why people do what they do. I know a couple who have an open marriage. My friend will help her husband find women on the website. No deception. Are there people being deceptive on there, yes im sure but not every one is. We live in a society whose extremely tolerant to casual sex with others, so don't go casting judgement on others when you dont know what makes others do what they do. Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Where's the judgement. Identifying that someone's behavior is deceptive holds no judgement at all. Repeating that I am passing judgement but continuing to not support that statement with evidence of where that judgement is isn't making your position any better. I didn't make up the meaning for deception that the behavior of having an affair clearly meets. Beyond that, the discussion of an open marriage, which obviously would eliminate the deception of most affairs, is completely irrelevant. We are arguing about affairs that are not the result of open marriages. That's another logical fallacy -- a faulty comparison. Are you deliberately trying to make flawed arguments to see if I will catch on to the joke of your posts?
If people are in open marriages than they have nothing go hide from their partner thus rendering their information a useless bargaining chip for hackers, yes?
As I understand it, the way it was set up was to eliminate the paper trail as much as possible to assist in not being caught, because like you say the majority of affairs are revealed through email and paper trail. All you do is pay once and you get unlimited correspondence hosted on their domain. So you pay one $19 fee, probably showing up as something generic on the CC statement "Internet LLC", you tell your wife it was for that part we needed for the lawnmower (that you really bought with cash from home depot) and talk to all the bitches you want, clearing internet history when you are done with each session. no emails, no texts, no Facebook, etc. It was a genius business idea, wish I came up with it back in the day its not your typical dating site but who gives a shit at least they were being honest about their existence. the overwhelming majority of people on "dating sites" are just looking for action anyway and a great deal of them are affairs. This one just cut through the BS and was real with people
