Encouraging people to have affairs
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?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
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.
Hope is the denial of reality
Jesus wept.The name of the site was created from the two most popular female baby names "Ashley" and "Madison"
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
Adultery itself is grounds for divorce? Where?Originally Posted by Loki
Congratulations America
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.
Hope is the denial of reality
Funny, overhere all you need is irreconcilable differences.
Congratulations America
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*
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
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.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Adultery isn't the only valid reason for a divorce in the US, irreconcilable differences is a very common filed reason.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
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.
Congratulations America
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.
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.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Would you like to use different logic, because this could be applied to a lot of things that you likely wouldn't agree with.
. . .
"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.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
So the guy who rents out the hotel room to the cheaters is also shares too?
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
"So" eh?
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
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
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>
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
That is the question, isn't it
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
It really does when you confuse responsibility with blame.
Do we now?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.
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.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
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.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Blame is a subset of responsibility, my dear. Or to make it more clear:
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.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
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.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Indeed it is!
[x] You still did not get the difference between responsibility and guilt/blame.
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").
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
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.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
You mean a "cease and desist!" declaration?
How the hell did this thread turn from adultery to murder?
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."
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.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
