Cheating website hacked and customer data released.

[Excited Penguin]

I can see that you're taking a very emotional approach to everything. This might be why you read me in a certain (false) way, like our friend Rebecca here.

I'm not an unreasonable person. I do not seek to start flame wars or heated debates about everything. This is only an impression I give out to certain types of people. It doesn't mean it describes me all that well. You shouldn't underestimate my own self-awareness or intelect either, based merely on my age or other mysterious non-mentioned factors. Also, I don't subscribe to the view that just because everyone says there's something wrong with the way I act that there genuinely is. A lot of the time, when evaluating individual attitudes and actions one fails to take in context - the larger picture, that is.

I think you're just rationalizing your own narcissistic attitude and uncontrollable desire to insult other people.  I also think you're verbally abusive because it helps you cope with your insecurites.  

But what do I know?  According to you, I'm lacking in the grey matter department.

Provide some actual reasons for your evaluation of me - in other words, prove to me you're not being unknowingly pitted against me and we'll see which is which.

[Excited Penguin]

The fact of the matter is, I do understand where you guys come from, even though we're merely chatting over the internet and there's no apparent way for me to do so. And I'm saying you're wrong, sentimental, irrational and plain silly.

You can't boast of the same. This has devolved in a childish exchange of hateful words - more on your part than mine, if you ask me, but who asks me? I'm the black sheep here. I'll always be wrong, unless I meet out some squishiness requirements everyone seems to always have - prove I'm not a robot and can actually feel. In other words I should deliberately make myself to be the victim, even though I know I'm being dishonest, just so I can win some cheap points with everyone. Also, I should agree with what everyone seems to think even though it's wrong, and demonstrably so, just so I can be called a cool dude, acceptable, relaxed, social, or whatever. God forbid I stay honest to myself and not drink the universal Kool-Aid.

[Pyrrho]

Yes.  It is immoral AND stupid.  If you do things online, you should not consider any of that actually private.  It may seem that way for a while, but that is more illusion than reality.  There are so many places where your actions can be accessed; in your computer, in your ISP, at the site you are dealing with, and every computer in between through which the data passes.  If any one of those is hacked, your information is now in someone else's hands.  And in the case of something like this, I believe the normal payment method is a credit card, so there is the credit card company that can be hacked as well.  When you leave a trail a mile wide, you should not be surprised if someone becomes aware of your actions.

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:

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.

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:

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 Civil Marriage Act 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.

[Faith No More]

Provide some actual reasons for your evaluation of me - in other words, prove to me you're not being unknowingly pitted against me and we'll see which is which.

Unknowingly pitted against you? By whom? You?

You've already admitted to having insecurities, but a true narcissist wouldn't be able to acknowledge having any. The fact that you put people down like you have insult Tourrette's Syndrome says to me that you're using this attitude to mask the fact that you lack the real self-esteem other people have. It's impulsive. So much so that you may not even be fully aware of how you insult people. That leads me to believe that you can't control it, and when people feel the need to impulsively insult others, it is because they have problems accepting who they are as a person. They put other people down to make themselves feel better.

Am I getting close?

[Excited Penguin]

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:

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.

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:

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.

[Excited Penguin]

Provide some actual reasons for your evaluation of me - in other words, prove to me you're not being unknowingly pitted against me and we'll see which is which.

Unknowingly pitted against you?  By whom?  You?

You've already admitted to having insecurities, but a true narcissist wouldn't be able to acknowledge having any. The fact that you put people down like you have insult Tourrette's Syndrome says to me that you're using this attitude to mask the fact that you lack the real self-esteem other people have.  It's impulsive. So much so that you may not even be fully aware of how you insult people. That leads me to believe that you can't control it, and when people feel the need to impulsively insult others, it is because they have problems accepting who they are as a person.  They put other people down to make themselves feel better.  

Am I getting close?

Not quite, Dr Phil. But you're not even being honest in your efforts to characterize me, you just hope to manipulate me into giving in to bullshit. That's blatantly obvious.

Pot, kettle, black. One thing though - I'm white. You've got shades on.

[Faith No More]

Not quite, Dr Phil. But you're not even being honest in your efforts to characterize me, you just hope to manipulate me into giving in to bullshit. That's blatantly obvious.

Pot, kettle, black. One thing though - I'm white. You've got shades on.

Manipulate you into giving into what bullshit? How could I ever hope to manipulate you when you're so much smarter than me?

You flatter yourself. I couldn't give two shits about whether or not you give in to anything, let alone whatever it is you're babbling about. I'm just trying to give you a little perspective on your behavior here, because if you're going to stick around, it be nice if you'd at least not punish the rest of us for your personal issues.

[Excited Penguin]

Not quite, Dr Phil. But you're not even being honest in your efforts to characterize me, you just hope to manipulate me into giving in to bullshit. That's blatantly obvious.

Pot, kettle, black. One thing though - I'm white. You've got shades on.

Manipulate you into giving into what bullshit?  How could I ever hope to manipulate you when you're so much smarter than me?

You flatter yourself.  I couldn't give two shits about whether or not you give in to anything, let alone whatever it is you're babbling about.  I'm just trying to give you a little perspective on your behavior here, because if you're going to stick around, it be nice if you'd at least not punish the rest of us for your personal issues.

Well, if you're being honest, I'm deeply hurt by your innacurate description of how you perceive me to be. What else is there to say? Fuck off?

[Excited Penguin]

Funny how everyone's got a problem with my so-called bad attitude yet they can't muster up any good counterarguments to what I say. I'm very curious if anyone at all notices the freakish resemblance with how christians misrepresent atheists.

[Faith No More]

Or it could be that no one wants to converse with an asshole?