Printable View
Eg. like AshleyMadison: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Madison
A business based on encouraging people in relationships to have affairs.
Ads for a similar service have appeared at every single bus-stop in Sthlm.
Ethical aspects? Social aspects? Free speech aspects? Legal aspects?
What's the fallout and how will society deal with it?
No worse then commercials on the lottery...
I don't think anyone who was going to stay faithful is going to suddenly start cheating because they see an ad. Its a pretty lame way to make money but hey its a free country.
Seeing that adultery is grounds for divorce, I wonder how long before they start being sued as part of divorce settlements.
Jesus wept.Quote:
Adultery itself is grounds for divorce? Where?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
In the US. In fact, in most states, you're more or less guaranteed a positive settlement if you can prove the other side committed adultery.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Funny, overhere all you need is irreconcilable differences.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Either you're being sarcastic or I'm displaying an appalling bit of cultural-ethnocentrism. Just where is sleeping around not a reason for divorce? *assuming a system with two equal or relatively equal partners*Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
I think you're mixing up two issues here: You can always divorce someone. That's what Hazir meant. What Loki meant was that you get a bigger part of the cake during the divorce settlement if you can prove that the other side committed adultery.
Adultery isn't the only valid reason for a divorce in the US, irreconcilable differences is a very common filed reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
You are right. Adultery is one of the many reasons one could have for 'irreconcilable differences'. It's not specified in the law overhere as a ground for divorce.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
That's disgusting. Being promiscuous is already considered to be 'ok' or even the norm, now there's a dating website encouraging it further. What ever happened to maintaining a moral code?
Jury would have to be dumb as a pile of bricks. The only person who is responsible for cheating is the cheater, no one else and certainty no company.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Since when do American divorces involve a jury?
Lewk's talking about the idea of civil liability for commercially encouraging a behavior which can justify civil claims. Civil liability trials certainly can involve juries.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Would you like to use different logic, because this could be applied to a lot of things that you likely wouldn't agree with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
"no one else and certainly no company". God > Jesus > Companies > Mere mortals.
I guess he meant "who is to blame". If you assist in cheating, there is some responsibility.
So the guy who rents out the hotel room to the cheaters is also shares too?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust
"So" eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
Not: "would that also include" to try to get me to nuance my position and have me narrow it down. Nope. "So". As in the logical conclusion I can draw from your post is that you believe the guy who rents out the hotel room also shares responsibility. When I said "assisting in cheating" I meant to imply intent there as well, although I didn't specify it that closely. But if you really are going to get hung up about it, I'll admit that has to be included.
So (no pun intended), any more loopholes you feel like I need to clear up which I didn't specify? I'm sure there are quite a few since I hardly specified anything :)
No, I was just trying to demonstrate how silly the whole thing sounded.
I'm not hung up on it. It just appears that instead of laying the blame on the actual participators, we go anywhere and every where to mitigate the blame.
<shrug>
That is the question, isn't itQuote:
Originally Posted by Draco
It really does when you confuse responsibility with blame.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
Do we now?Quote:
I'm not hung up on it. It just appears that instead of laying the blame on the actual participators, we go anywhere and every where to mitigate the blame.
I don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
If you kill someone as a last resort in self-defence, you can't be blamed but you are responsible for the death as a result of your actions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust
I see the splitting hairs division is up and running.
If I kill some one as a last resort in self defense...the aggressor is responsible...as he put me in the circumstance to begin with.
Blame is a subset of responsibility, my dear. Or to make it more clear:Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
Everyone who can be blamed for something is also responsible for said something.
But not everyone who is responsible for something can also be blamed for said something.
For instance, we present-day Germans still have a certain historical responsibility for World War II. But the overwhelming majority of us certainly can't be blamed for World War II.
And of course you'd also be responsible for having killed the aggressor. That's why the law needs to make a distinction between manslaughter and self-defense in the first place... because both have the same result: Someone else is dead directly due to your actions.
If my hand is forced by someone else, I'm under duress, I'm not responsible. Thus your own argument re: self-defense vs man slaughter is in my favor...I'm found not responsible. The ass hat that was trying to kill me is responsible for his cease to exist circumstance.
This is of course presuming I did nothing to instigate the attack to begin with.
Indeed it is!Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
[x] You still did not get the difference between responsibility and guilt/blame.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
You will be found responsible for a case of manslaughter, but you'll not be found guilty. Your actions did cause the manslaughter - whether it's under duress or not is completely irrelevant for discerning responsibility.
EVERY action you do or refrain from doing makes you responsible for the results thereof. Whether you're then to BLAME for the results, that's a completely different story. Responsibility is neutral - you did A, which results in B. Since you did A, you're responsible for B. If someone asks why and how B came to pass, you'll have to respond (see the term I just used: "Respond"? Now, set that into relation with the term "Responsibility").
Nope, sorry, can't see it that way. If I am forced/coerced to do something, I am neither responsible or to blame.
In this example, is the guy who forced me into a life/death struggle is responsible for the outcome of his death as he instigated it.
You mean a "cease and desist!" declaration? :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
How the hell did this thread turn from adultery to murder? :haha:
We used to call this Swinging. People who liked relationships tolerating "affairs" were called Swingers. There wasn't advertising on bus skins, or member web sites, or even "profiteering from promiscuity". I suppose it was more word-of-mouth that they found each other, or knew which club or bar Swingers could find other Swingers. There used to be a sub-culture in certain lesbian haunts where hetero Swinger couples looking for a menage a trois could find a bi-sexual woman....maybe there still is?
Of course. But you are also responsible for his death. THAT is why you wind up in court having to explain yourself. Because the police will see: "Oh, that guy is responsible for the other one's death!" It's then up to the court to determine whether you're guilty of manslaughter or whether it was self-defense. But no one will tell you: "Oh, you're not responsible for his death."Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
Because, you see, the cause of action is: A => B => C - A: He threatens you, B: You react, C: He dies - which means that both his action A and your reaction B are responsible for outcome C. That's responsiblity - an ethically neutral term which does not tell us anything about whether you're guilty of something or not.
Another example: You're responsible for the actions of your children. Which means that if your children do something wrong, YOU will have to answer for it, regardless of whether you watched over your children or they snuck out behind your back. Responsibility simply means: "If something happened, who is the one whose (in)actions led to the result?"
That's all it is. You can now argue until the cows come home that you do see it otherwise - but I fear that real life will disagree with your definition, especially if you wind up in court. Anyone who tells you otherwise is sloppy in his use of language. In Physics, this would be the equivalent of using "Energy" when you mean "Force", for example.