(August 19, 2015 at 10:58 pm)Pyrrho Wrote:(August 19, 2015 at 7:18 pm)excitedpenguin Wrote: I don't think we should blame the customers so much as the company's security issues.
You mean that we should blame the company for promising to keep that sort of stuff a secret? But you say:
(August 19, 2015 at 7:21 pm)excitedpenguin Wrote: A promise doesn't change anything at all. Promises are for idiots, anyway. We shouldn't promise anything since we can't exactly control our own future circumstances(no matter how potent the illusion that we can is) in order to make sure we can respect that promise before we even consider making it.
If the idiots believed the promises of secrecy, who is to blame for that? Did the company make them idiots? The company may have had poor security. That likely is not a violation of their agreement with their clients. Even if the security is good, that does not make it impossible for their site to be hacked. Anyone doing anything online should keep that in mind when doing whatever it is they are doing online. Morons are people who forget such things and act as if it were impossible for their "private" online activities to be made public.
According to what you say about promises, there is no reason whatsoever to be upset with the company for being hacked, as any promises they might have made about secrecy are "for idiots." In the limited case of things done online, I am inclined to agree with you.
(August 19, 2015 at 7:18 pm)excitedpenguin Wrote: This principle is still at work even when talking about other, similar things that might be targeted and hacked by certain groups/persons.
As for the immoral claim, I invite you to explain to me why you find it immoral so I could better understand your own moral judgements about things.
It has to do with an agreement, which, in the case of marriage, has various legal parameters. It used to be illegal to commit adultery, though it is not illegal in every state of the U.S. at present. Still, it is often held to be grounds for a divorce. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grounds_for_divorce
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grounds_fo...ed_States)
In Canada (is that where you are?), adultery is grounds for a divorce:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_Act_(Canada)
And, apparently, it is not something outdated, but in recent use:
Quote:In Canada, though the written definition in the Divorce Act refers to extramarital relations with someone of the opposite sex, a British Columbia judge used the in a 2005 case to grant a woman a divorce from her husband who had cheated on her with another man, which the judge felt was equal reasoning to dissolve the union.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery
As has been mentioned by someone else, STDs are a real possibility, so not knowing does not mean that one will not be hurt. There are also paternity issues.
In my case, I do not want to get any STDs, and I do not want to be raising any children. This requires certain conduct from my wife. Also, if I were to father children with other women, this could financially impact me and my wife as well (because my finances affect her finances, and vice versa). Plus, she does not want any STDs. This requires certain conduct from me.
The whole thing only works if we abide by our agreements. Otherwise, we risk undesirable consequences. Since we are legally glued together through marriage, what one of us does can significantly affect the other. This extends way beyond sex, and includes many other things that we do. For how this applies to debts in the U.S., see:
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/d...572-2.html
In some states, one is responsible for all debts that one's spouse incurs. If you cannot rely on your spouse promising not to run up huge debts, you will be totally screwed in some states. So, in order for a marriage to be workable, one needs to be able to trust one's spouse about a good many things.
With your view of promises, you ought to never marry, as one must depend upon promises being kept for things to work properly.
This would be a bitch to respond to and I think you meant it that way. Fortunately though, all your word salad amounts to nothing. I didn't mean what you implied I meant, I meant only what I said - that and only that. You didn't address that at all. Instead, you went off in different directions you imagined a conversation with me would take you if I were to be fooled by your subliminal(I hope) diversion tactics. Until you address what I actually sayed, don't expect me to overlook this slight. I couldn't if I wanted to. We can't pretend to be talking about the same things, when in fact we aren't, and expect anything like a productive conversation. It's more like you set up the ground for me to agree with you and for you to look the undeniably charming intellectual. Well, I think not. Going for broke at the end and tentatively agreeing with me won't make it work either, as I think you can see.
Also, I take it you didn't read through as right after someone pointed the STDs problem I took a similar stance to yours.
Please don't be so naive as to expect me to take your advice on anything on just your say-so.
