Ashley Madison web site hacked. Sorry cheaters...

[OutdoorDad]

And now I'll bring it back full circle to where I started. If you all will let me...

There are two camps:
1) People who engage in activities that I don't agree with deserve any misfortune that befalls them. In fact, I rejoice in their discomfort.
2) No one deserves to be abused and taken advantage of.

Those who fall into category 1 think and say things like "I'm glad that a-hole down the street was murdered in his sleep" or "'the gays' deserve to catch aids because of their abhorrent behavior". Or "damn meth heads stole a car and drove it into a bridge abutment, it killed them all and they deserved it"

Category 2 thinkers are rolling these thoughts in their heads "the a-hole down the street got hacked to death in his sleep! Never liked the sob, but sad to know someone was killed" or "that sucks. No one needs to get aids and die." Or "poor kids. I wish they had never gotten messed up in meth. There is no happiness at the end of that road."

And right NOW. AT THIS VERY MOMENT, someone is thinking that they'd be perfectly happy if a poster or two above got run over by a bus.
And they are cloaking their hatred and immaturity in the guise of righteousness.

I think it was a beautiful admonition that all of us are in the crowd of onlookers being asked to examine OURSELVES. And we aren't the one who asks "who is without sin?".

Sucks for these folk. Two too many beers on a late night computer binge. And they wound up with an account. And now their marriage is over. That really sucks. And for those of you who are still tickled about it, how about signing up to do some counciling for the kids who are affected? Or did they have it coming too??

 

[jamil]

Oh, so there's the extra poopy dickhead *******s who hate puppies, and then there's the saintly, benevolent kind hearted doogooders. Okay. Gotcha.

Or it may just be a be a false dichotomy.

 

[oldpink]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jamil again.

 

[pudly]

Or it may just be a be a false dichotomy.

^ This.

 

[Roadie]

 

[OutdoorDad]

Oh, so there's the extra poopy dickhead *******s who hate puppies, and then there's the saintly, benevolent kind hearted doogooders. Okay. Gotcha.

Or it may just be a be a false dichotomy.

Not what I said.
And I think you know better.

 

[oldpink]

Looks as if someone wants desperately to go from Marksman to Shooter.

 

[IndyDave1776]

And now I'll bring it back full circle to where I started. If you all will let me...

There are two camps:
1) People who engage in activities that I don't agree with deserve any misfortune that befalls them. In fact, I rejoice in their discomfort.
2) No one deserves to be abused and taken advantage of.

Those who fall into category 1 think and say things like "I'm glad that a-hole down the street was murdered in his sleep" or "'the gays' deserve to catch aids because of their abhorrent behavior". Or "damn meth heads stole a car and drove it into a bridge abutment, it killed them all and they deserved it"

Category 2 thinkers are rolling these thoughts in their heads "the a-hole down the street got hacked to death in his sleep! Never liked the sob, but sad to know someone was killed" or "that sucks. No one needs to get aids and die." Or "poor kids. I wish they had never gotten messed up in meth. There is no happiness at the end of that road."

And right NOW. AT THIS VERY MOMENT, someone is thinking that they'd be perfectly happy if a poster or two above got run over by a bus.
And they are cloaking their hatred and immaturity in the guise of righteousness.

I think it was a beautiful admonition that all of us are in the crowd of onlookers being asked to examine OURSELVES. And we aren't the one who asks "who is without sin?".

Sucks for these folk. Two too many beers on a late night computer binge. And they wound up with an account. And now their marriage is over. That really sucks. And for those of you who are still tickled about it, how about signing up to do some counciling for the kids who are affected? Or did they have it coming too??

You need to grow up. In case your understanding is too limited to grasp the concept, let me explain that there is a great deal of middle ground between being a pharisee and being permissive to the level you seem to demand in order to meet your misguided understanding of being a decent person. You sound very much like the advocates for assorted progressive causes who insist that if you do not actively carry water for their chosen ones, you are a racist, bigot, and generally nasty person.

Now, put your insults away for 30 seconds and engage in some critical thought. Do you really think that it is necessary to accept and condone the misdeeds of others and actively feel sympathy for their experience of the consequences which are a natural product of an extreme form of betrayal that they perpetrated on their spouses?

If you are going to insist on your position, perhaps you should take up with God his apparent unfair and judgmental position in allowing Hell to exist. After all, as you SHOULD understand, it is a natural consequence of sin for those who choose not to accept salvation, just as being set out front is a very natural and predictable consequence of engaging in adultery over the internet.

Now, if you are willing to be the slightest bit intellectually honest, how are you going to continue your 'drunk at the keyboard' excuse to the ongoing review of profiles, contact, and arranging an in-person meeting as being basically accidental in nature? How is it that you are suggesting that counseling their kids becomes our responsibility while we are supposed to condone the initial misdeed? I will agree with the notion of helping kids who need it, but you are conveniently bypassing the reason why they would need that help. Since you seem to be having a difficult time with this, let me break it down for you: No, those children DO NOT 'have it coming'. It was imposed on them by a parent's unacceptable conduct, not by my disapproval of that conduct. In fact, that is a significant reason for my disapproval. If you really believe that disapproval of adultery is necessarily a product of hatred and immaturity, you really need to rethink your thoughts.

If you are going to stand by your position, there is a religious institution you may consider joining:

 

[oldpink]

Just goes to show that there will always be contrarians willing to excuse the indefensible, even while they condemn virtue.
One can only wonder if it's personal.

 

[jamil]

I didn't think anyone was really getting testy. Maybe I'm wrong. Of course, maybe I'm an INGO n00b and naively think it's silly to get testy over this subject.

Not what I said.
And I think you know better.

You didn't use the words I used--I prefer a bit of color in my words--but you presented a false dichotomy, where one side is evil--obviously "their" side, and one side is good--obviously your side. You've neglected the many more likely possibilities in between.

It just seems you're stereotyping the people who say they're not going to sympathize with people who now have their nethers in a vice after having accepted the risk of doing risky things. From saying we don't sympathize with these victims, you've extrapolated way more intent than the facts allow, which is exactly the kind of judgmental attitude that you're accusing others of having. Without reading into things unsaid, how do you get to the following conclusion?

"And right NOW. AT THIS VERY MOMENT, someone is thinking that they'd be perfectly happy if a poster or two above got run over by a bus.
And they are cloaking their hatred and immaturity in the guise of righteousness."
​

Having read this entire thread, I think that statement is astonishing.

 

[iChokePeople]

<snip>As I said, I don't wish them any evil nor am I acting in any way to harm them. <snip>

I am unclear how I have somehow not shown anyone "Christlike love"? Christ's love and sympathy are far from the same thing. If someone I knew was revealed to be a AM cheater, I would do nothing to harm them and if possible would try to help them through whatever the consequences were.

That said, I would never imply that what they did was less than grossly wrong and that they had brought it on themselves. Christ's love requires honesty, the perversion of both of which is the basis for this entire mess.

Actually, I think that ^^ is a pretty solid position... not that it matters a bit what I think. As to sympathy, I think we'll have to agree to disagree, as I think sympathy for the "sinner" is an inherent part of it. As I was taught, "hate the sin, love the sinner". You're a smart guy and I respect you and your opinions. It's clear that some of us have completely different understandings of that book and its basic, most fundamental message, its "gospel", than others, and that's fine, too.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Actually, I think that ^^ is a pretty solid position... not that it matters a bit what I think. As to sympathy, I think we'll have to agree to disagree, as I think sympathy for the "sinner" is an inherent part of it. As I was taught, "hate the sin, love the sinner". You're a smart guy and I respect you and your opinions. It's clear that some of us have completely different understandings of that book and its basic, most fundamental message, its "gospel", than others, and that's fine, too.

Your arguments have comingled two different ideas in this regard. Feeling sympathy for a person being misguided and in a state of sin is one thing. Morphing that into defending his position and applying victim status for a self-inflicted consequence is something entirely different. This is not a case like your 3 year old touching a hot stove. This is a case of adults willfully making some very bad decisions for which I would feel some sympathy for their misguided state, but am not about to defend them or their actions which is what you appear to be doing.

 

[iChokePeople]

Your arguments have comingled two different ideas in this regard. Feeling sympathy for a person being misguided and in a state of sin is one thing. Morphing that into defending his position and applying victim status for a self-inflicted consequence is something entirely different. This is not a case like your 3 year old touching a hot stove. This is a case of adults willfully making some very bad decisions for which I would feel some sympathy for their misguided state, but am not about to defend them or their actions which is what you appear to be doing.

Can you point out where I "defend[ed] his position and appl[ied] for victim status"? I must have missed that part. As to the part about it being due to their own choices, wasn't that also the case for the woman in the bible story? Or anyone else who prays for mercy? I don't think you're responsible for any "sin" into which you were coerced, but again, maybe we disagree there, as well.

Never mind, doesn't matter, I don't think there's any chance that either side here is going to change their fundamental positions, and that's fine, too.

ETA: Look, I'm going to bow out of this pointless and endless discussion where I started: It would have been a significantly different story on INGO. Not necessarily a worse story, just a different one. She made bad choices, she was a sinner, and she deserved the punishment.

 

[jamil]

Your arguments have comingled two different ideas in this regard. Feeling sympathy for a person being misguided and in a state of sin is one thing. Morphing that into defending his position and applying victim status for a self-inflicted consequence is something entirely different. This is not a case like your 3 year old touching a hot stove. This is a case of adults willfully making some very bad decisions for which I would feel some sympathy for their misguided state, but am not about to defend them or their actions which is what you appear to be doing.

Just a small point of disagreement.

The consequences weren't exactly self-inflicted. Someone else maliciously brought on those consequences, albeit because those people make a really good target for extortion.

The part I have no sympathy for is that their embarrassing and dishonest deeds were exposed. Anytime we hide our actions so as not to feel the consequences of bad behavior, there's still a risk that the people we're hiding it from will find out. And in the age of the internet, a web company whose business it is to facilitate that kind of behavior, seems like a ripe target for an extortion payday.

That's the risk they've assumed, and I feel no moral compulsion at all to feel sorry for them being exposed. Posters implying that we're immoral for taking that position are imposing their own sense of morality on us. I'm just going to push back on that with pointed language every time.

 

[actaeon277]

And while we're talking about NOT having sympathy, I'd have no sympathy for the hackers if they get caught.

 

[BugI02]

I didn't think anyone was really getting testy. Maybe I'm wrong. Of course, maybe I'm an INGO n00b and naively think it's silly to get testy over this subject.



You didn't use the words I used--I prefer a bit of color in my words--but you presented a false dichotomy, where one side is evil--obviously "their" side, and one side is good--obviously your side. You've neglected the many more likely possibilities in between.

It just seems you're stereotyping the people who say they're not going to sympathize with people who now have their nethers in a vice after having accepted the risk of doing risky things. From saying we don't sympathize with these victims, you've extrapolated way more intent than the facts allow, which is exactly the kind of judgmental attitude that you're accusing others of having. Without reading into things unsaid, how do you get to the following conclusion?

"And right NOW. AT THIS VERY MOMENT, someone is thinking that they'd be perfectly happy if a poster or two above got run over by a bus.
And they are cloaking their hatred and immaturity in the guise of righteousness."
​

Having read this entire thread, I think that statement is astonishing.

7,461 posts. Pfft. Noob for sure

 

[IndyDave1776]

And while we're talking about NOT having sympathy, I'd have no sympathy for the hackers if they get caught.

I agree completely. They deserve to receive free room and board at the Gray Bar Hotel.

 

[BugI02]

Can you point out where I "defend[ed] his position and appl[ied] for victim status"? I must have missed that part. As to the part about it being due to their own choices, wasn't that also the case for the woman in the bible story? Or anyone else who prays for mercy? I don't think you're responsible for any "sin" into which you were coerced, but again, maybe we disagree there, as well.

Never mind, doesn't matter, I don't think there's any chance that either side here is going to change their fundamental positions, and that's fine, too.

ETA: Look, I'm going to bow out of this pointless and endless discussion where I started: It would have been a significantly different story on INGO. Not necessarily a worse story, just a different one. She made bad choices, she was a sinner, and she deserved the punishment.

Yep. You're right. It would be a totally diffrnt story on INGO because, I'm quite certain, WE'RE ALL SINNERS HERE. If it wasn't for one man, why, we'd all be damned.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Data was dumped today. Going to be an interesting few weeks ahead. Lots of government addresses (although AM didn't bother to verify them... that'll be the primary excuse, I'm guessing.)

Here's a collection of the mil/gov domains leaked:

http://pastebin.com/U4QQEaBE

Here's one take on the situation (NSFW language)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WksCisy3JyE

 

[OakRiver]

Data was dumped today. Going to be an interesting few weeks ahead. Lots of government addresses (although AM didn't bother to verify them... that'll be the primary excuse, I'm guessing.)

Here's a collection of the mil/gov domains leaked:

tab separated mil/gov domain count - Pastebin.com

Here's one take on the situation (NSFW language)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WksCisy3JyE

Anyone got popcorn? Because this could get interesting