On the (Il)Legality of organisations such as Ashley Madison
What do you think - should organisations promoting deceitfulness (think for example Ashley Madison which aims to be a dating website for people already in commited relationships, guaranteeing to keep the identity of their members secret) be outlawed, and people engaged in such activities punished by law?
I would say yes, they should. The reason is as follows: such organisations are not merely presenting different ways of life (cultural alternatives). Let's take the example of Ashley Madison. If it presented a different way of life to closed, monogamous relationships, it could be a website for people interested in open relationships to get together, socialise and find partners. That would be entirely acceptable. But it doesn't do this. It aims at people who are married, in closed monogamous relationships - it's slogan being "Life is short. Have an affair". It guarantees the security of its members so that their partners don't find out. Thus, not only does it provide a platform through which people can deceive their partners and break their marriage agreements - but it encourages this!! "Life is short. Have an affair"
Now, what is wrong with deception? Obviously the trust of one of the parties is broken, and therefore the party whose trust was broken is treated unfairly. They are forced to take part in something that they never wanted to happen in the first place - in a way that is not under their control. This is a most serious form of oppression. Now, if being a platform or tool for deception is not such a great evil, encouraging deception is most certainly a great evil since it undermines the integrity of the entire society by promoting anti-social values, which creates the potential for discord and conflict. Think about it - what if I opened a website explaining to people how they can get away with breaking their business contracts and swindling and defrauding their business partners using loopholes in the law - it wouldn't be long until it would get shut, and the police would come knocking on my door. Or imagine ISIS running a website about the advantages of joining their organisation, and providing instruction to their followers around the globe on how to plant bombs, how to acquire weapons illegally, etc. Should we not shut down such a website immediately because it promotes values which cause conflict and discord in society?
I argue the same is the case for websites like Ashley Madison. They too cause conflicts in society, broken families, which lead to long term poverty, problems with children and so on. Furthermore, they also encourage and applaud deceiving "Life is short. Have an affair". They make a virtue out of the social sin of oppressing and deceiving others. Thus such an organisation deserves not only to be outlawed - but treated exactly like ISIS - with all their associates and members tracked down and brought in front of the law to be judged for promoting and engaging in illegal activity (in this case, the illegal activity would be anti-social behaviour and fraud). But to allow them to continue to function - and not only this - but to make money out of such an activity - that is the most monstrous absurdity.
I would say yes, they should. The reason is as follows: such organisations are not merely presenting different ways of life (cultural alternatives). Let's take the example of Ashley Madison. If it presented a different way of life to closed, monogamous relationships, it could be a website for people interested in open relationships to get together, socialise and find partners. That would be entirely acceptable. But it doesn't do this. It aims at people who are married, in closed monogamous relationships - it's slogan being "Life is short. Have an affair". It guarantees the security of its members so that their partners don't find out. Thus, not only does it provide a platform through which people can deceive their partners and break their marriage agreements - but it encourages this!! "Life is short. Have an affair"
Now, what is wrong with deception? Obviously the trust of one of the parties is broken, and therefore the party whose trust was broken is treated unfairly. They are forced to take part in something that they never wanted to happen in the first place - in a way that is not under their control. This is a most serious form of oppression. Now, if being a platform or tool for deception is not such a great evil, encouraging deception is most certainly a great evil since it undermines the integrity of the entire society by promoting anti-social values, which creates the potential for discord and conflict. Think about it - what if I opened a website explaining to people how they can get away with breaking their business contracts and swindling and defrauding their business partners using loopholes in the law - it wouldn't be long until it would get shut, and the police would come knocking on my door. Or imagine ISIS running a website about the advantages of joining their organisation, and providing instruction to their followers around the globe on how to plant bombs, how to acquire weapons illegally, etc. Should we not shut down such a website immediately because it promotes values which cause conflict and discord in society?
I argue the same is the case for websites like Ashley Madison. They too cause conflicts in society, broken families, which lead to long term poverty, problems with children and so on. Furthermore, they also encourage and applaud deceiving "Life is short. Have an affair". They make a virtue out of the social sin of oppressing and deceiving others. Thus such an organisation deserves not only to be outlawed - but treated exactly like ISIS - with all their associates and members tracked down and brought in front of the law to be judged for promoting and engaging in illegal activity (in this case, the illegal activity would be anti-social behaviour and fraud). But to allow them to continue to function - and not only this - but to make money out of such an activity - that is the most monstrous absurdity.
Comments (137)
That is not the question. Do you think they should or shouldn't be prosecuted, and why or why not? I understand Canadian government may not prosecute them, but that is a different question.
However, I disagree that this is the legislation of morality, as much as it is the prevention of socially harmful behaviour and fraud (yes, breaking a marriage contract, especially if done with intent of deceiving the other - entails gaining an unfair advantage over the other party).
Quoting photographer
First define what counts as "prospective" adulterers, and how they can be identified. Second, I don't understand how it follows from my argument that prospective adulturers aren't deserving of protection from fraud...
On a side note, I'm having difficulty separating your caliphate from ISIS, except on the basis of tactics.
I argue that most members are/were prospective adulterers given the official aims of the website (to attract adulterers). It would be unreasonable to believe otherwise.
It's not the members who were deceived, but the partners of those members; quite obviously the adulterer is the criminal, not the victim.
Quoting photographer
*facepalm* Yes let's see... what comparison is there between people who want to kill others because they have different beliefs, and I who want to punish those who do injustice unto others, who abuse others, and who deceive others? If protecting people from being swindled, decieved, and abused is what you call being similar to ISIS, then I feel sorry for you.
Also I never mentioned any hacking. For what purpose did you bring that up? We're not discussing the legality of hacking them, we're discussing the fact that they should be outlawed for being divisive, anti-social, and encouraging illegal activity.
No - I clearly outlined that adultery (extra-martial sex) is not a crime if both partners of the relationship agree with this - in other words if it is an OPEN MARRIAGE. Do you understand these words?
Yes - only the payer can be defrauded by Ashley Madison. BUT Ashley Madison encourages illegal activity, and provides the means for people to do so, by providing adulterers from CLOSED MARRIAGES (towards which Ashley Madison is aimed to) both the means and the moral encouragement to defraud their partners and break their marriage contracts, all the while attempting to cover their backs. Is this clear enough for you?
I fail to see why people (just like you blindly do so here) associate sexual morality with religion. To me, it's equally an important question for atheists too. And I count as an atheist in this discussion. Sexual morality has never been a question of God - people who put it in those terms are idiots. It's not because of God that adultery is discouraged, it's because people are in-built to feel possessive about their lovers, and adultery encourages lots of harmful emotions. As you can see - has nothing to do with God. But if there are people who are not harmed by adultery - if BOTH of them are not harmed - then let them have an open marriage, and have as many other partners as they want to. If you don't believe this, perhaps I should teach you a little about the evolutionary basis of jealousy, monogamy, and morality which will justify why most of us find it abhorring if our partners cheat on us, while the rest are a mere deviation of nature.
Sites like Grindr or Ashley Madison and a million other sleazy sites exist because pointing-and-clicking adults wish for them to exist. And then too, capitalism reduces everything to the cash nexus. (KM)
True, marriage is a contract, and my understanding is that in the US military, adultery is a violation of military rules -- not that a lot of time is spent on enforcement, but never the less... In the larger civilian sphere, sexual activity is covered by the expectation of privacy, meaning the state does not interfere with (is not supposed to interfere with, anyway) individuals' behavior or activities in non-coercive, consensual sexual activity.
The state has pursued other sites for arranging and facilitating fraud and deception. Both site operators and individual users who downloaded illegally obtained music and video were prosecuted. (All of them were not prosecuted, but some were.)
There is another consideration that would/should/might discourage the state from pursuing sites and participants who wish to, or have committed adultery: a flawed relationship can not be forced to be good and whole by legislative, judicial, or ecclesial authorities.
I much prefer the idea of long-lasting stable mutually agreeable marriages when and where children are present. Parents have a binding obligation to their children, and they (parents) should put up and shut up to the best of their ability. My preferences not withstanding, neither the church nor the state has found a way of making people be good parents, putting up with the deficiencies of the marriage, and shutting up about it, and dutifully and cheerfully doing their duty to their children.
One other thing: Adultery is not unforgivable. Even if it isn't a good idea, the failures of one or both partners can be amended, reformed, and wholeness re-established.
The more urgent obligation these idiot parents have to their unfortunate children is a far more pressing issue than childless adults jacking their partners around and having extramarital affairs.
Which is a most reasonable option. You have to keep in mind that with the internet the possibility of disinformation is GREATER than the possibility of information. Hence something must be done to cut out from disinformation, so that the average person can more easily access the real information he is looking for. The average person doesn't have your intellectual capacities nor the time to judge whether information is accurate or not.
Quoting photographer
Why not?
Quoting photographer
I'm not trying to FORCE you to be different - I'm just inquiring why you are so accepting of deception, treachery, betrayal, cheating, and adultery. It seems quite inhuman to my tastes, but if the majority of Canadian people, like you, have no problem with this, then that is fine. However, Mr. Photographer - I doubt the average Canadian would in fact agree to your immoral and violent animalistic mentality. Just take a look:
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/graphic-the-demography-of-adultery
66% of Canadians deny that they would commit adultery if they could.
51% think their partners would NOT forgive them if they did
49% (compared to 32% opposite) would NOT forgive their partners if they did
So the evil-doer and oppressor sir, is most certainly you, who wish to take advantage of your fellow countrymen and are not interested to even listen to what they're telling you. Political correctness needs to go out the window - yes, Donald J. Trump is in fact right.
Quoting photographer
The freedom of the individual to abuse his fellow men and women? If abuse goes inside bedrooms, then the state should get its tail there and stop it. Why are you so afraid? Are you an adulterer?
Immoral acts should be criminal (even though currently they may not be) - that is why the law exists, as an approximation for morality. Otherwise why would beating one's children be illegal? The justification is clearly because such an act is immoral.
Yes, you are quite right BC, in this case, capitalism has acted as a means of oppression, that is why government intervention is needed to prevent this.
Quoting Bitter Crank
What if this behavior is non-coercive, consensual but nevertheless opresses and harms third parties? Do you think it's right if privacy is used as a means to justify oppression? Afterall, most people who are cheated on would not accept remaining with their partners if they knew. Hence, they are being greatly decieved, in perhaps one of the MOST important aspects/spheres of their lives.
Quoting Bitter Crank
This is all good :) .
Quoting Bitter Crank
True - but then the people involved should divorce first, and then engage in whatever relationships they want, instead of pretend to maintain their marriage contract while they break it. It's not adultery itself that is wrong - but the deception that goes along with it.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Maybe because people expect too much from marriage... if there was a more thorough going pessimism - this isn't going to make me happy, but it's the unhappiness that I choose.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Can - but most people would not want to do this, as it goes against their sense of justice and being done wrong.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Agreed.
It is interesting that beating one's children (and wife) was once considered private behaviour - as they were property - and is now generally criminal; while adultery was often considered criminal (And still is by the Taliban you so admire,), but is now considered a private matter in the West. But I think the former can be explained by the extension of the idea of a citizen who deserves the protection of the law from property-owning whites who have reached the age of majority to all. As to the latter phenomenon, the history of adultery - both its definitions and punishments - is extremely complex: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery .
Being the pessimist you are, you surely hold to the idea of a profoundly flawed, lying, cheating, stealing, sneaking, and conniving humankind whose very nature it is to be hypocritical: thinking one thing about themselves, but actually doing something quite contrary. Original sin, in other words. In some ways, original sin is the most valid idea in all of Christendom.
It's one thing if people are just too stupid to behave properly. They can be taught, trained, and schooled. It is quite another to have high expectations for people to behave morally -- especially in behavior powerfully driven by gonads which have no interest at all in morality. (A stiff dick has no morals.) No amount of education has ever prevented people from sinning in all of the various and sundry ways to which we are prone. No amount of force has ever worked either in this area.
Had we more leisure, more imagination, more energy, more money, more time -- we'd probably get more sinning done. As it is, most of us spend our days working, striving, persevering -- despite the whole thing being a monstrous hoax, possibly.
And, you know, sexual sins are no worse than other sins. Sin is sin--if that is what we are talking about. All we, like sheep, have gone astray. Your particular sin may not be sexual; perhaps it is related to gluttony, greed, jealousy, or sloth -- I don't know, there are various possibilities. It doesn't matter, because sin is sin. Lust as much as larceny.
Not only is sin sin, but we are incapable of not sinning, Left to our own devices, we will sin. I will, you will, he will, she will. Everybody.
So, apparently there is no hope. But WAIT! Here comes the calvary over the hill, just in the nick of time. Why, it's God Himself! At least in Calvinist theology, we are dependent on the action of God (Christ) to redeem us from the sin we are doomed to commit. We can't help it. Without the intervention of Christ, we are totally and irrevocably 100% screwed. On our own strength, we can not "be good".
It is God's problem. If God decides to save X, Y, or Z from the depths of hell, they are in the Good Grace of God. If God does not so choose, nothing, NOTHING, can help them.
This is, see, a nice pessimistic way of looking at morals and behavior. One can lament naughty behavior, but then realize we can't help it. You can't help it either. If you come off as a self-righteous prick, it is original sin at work and you are powerless. If I come off as a sanctimonious liar, that is my doom. I am powerless.
This is the theology I was raised on, and I haven't been able to rid my self of it altogether. On a good day, my compromise is to acknowledge that people behave abominably, which is most unfortunate. But what does one expect from bright apes, if not occasional lapses into appalling chimpanzee behavior.
No it's not. The legislation of morality is a leftover from an earlier age. Modern legal theory is that the purpose of law is to prevent people from harming others, not from being "immoral." Sometimes there is a overlap - most people think murder is immoral in general. Often there is not - most people don't think it's immoral to drive through a red light by accident, but it's still a crime.
In any case, the legislation of morality (especially personal sexual morality) has led to more so many problems that most states have stopped doing it. For instance, adultery is no longer illegal in any state I know about because it's so easy to accuse somebody of it, whether true or not, and the remedy is so simple for those who don't want an adulterous spouse - they can divorce him. Criminalizing adulterous serves no purpose except pandering to prudes.
Ashley Madison is just a reaction to all this, providing a temporary way out for you and your genitalia.
I think spouses also deserve the protection of the law from being deceived (which as far as I am aware is a harm - if it is not, emotional suffering which it entails surely is).
Quoting Bitter Crank
Well - I don't really. I think man is both angel and devil; there's both a principle and source of altrusim in us, and a principle of selfishness. But yes - I think we are bound to always make mistakes regardless of what we do.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Agreed.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Definitely.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Sure - but I think the emotional damage done to one's spouse due to cheating is in many cases worse than the damage done by every-day kind of gluttony, greed, sloth, etc. It is the damage that we should prevent and punish, not the sin itself.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Sure - but at least let's seriously try not to hurt others.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Yes, but the point isn't to lament harmful behavior (such as stealing for example, which still goes on even if there is a law and punishment against it), but rather to prevent it as much as possible and to punish it when it can't be prevented.
Quoting Landru Guide Us
Okay, agreed. I never said ALL adultery should be illegal. In an open marriage adultery should be perfectly legal since both partners agree and no one is harmed. BUT!! In the case of closed marriages, people are greatly harmed by their partner's adultery. Hence laws need to be implemented to prevent, and if not, to punish those who decide to become harmful elements of society.
Being cheated on - that is probably one of the worst emotional pains one can encounter. I have a friend that I haven't met for a long time, and finally we saw each other now (we live in different countries). She told me that she recently found out her husband cheated on her, and that literarily, her whole psychological well-being has been totally destroyed. She compared the experience of finding about the cheating to the experience of finding that one has cancer. Now to tell me that the state doesn't have a duty to prevent, and if not to prevent, at least to punish in some way the perpetrators of this harm? Yes - it's a duty to prevent people from being harmed this adultery business, much more than it is a "moral" business. And in fact, what is morality, if not preventing harm to others?
Quoting discoii
Very Marxist - but - factually wrong. These theories are first of all speculations. There is no empirical, undeniable proof. But - if we start from first principles - I think we can develop a plausible theory. Nature's overarching interest (a metaphor for what will statistically happen over the long term) is to develop the strongest species possible. Nature puts the following constraints: man can fertilise as many females as he wants, a female can only be fertilised once afterwhich for 9 months she must be protected to give birth (a very painful experience, which was very probable to cause the death of the female as well in the past), and then the baby must be protected. Nature's interest is that the alpha male fertilises as many females as possible - hence showing us that it is man's nature to be polygamous. However - given the biological constraints put on the female body - Nature's interest is also that males stay with females, and protect them and their babies after birth. Hence showing us that females must by nature be monogamous (of course there are exceptions, but those are only deviations). Not only is it female nature to be monogamous - but men also want their women to be monogamous. Why? When the alpha male saw other males lurking around his women, if he wasn't careful and annihilated them as soon as possible, they would mate with his women. Then the women would be unable to mate for the next 9 months, and would also risk dying through child birth. Hence Nature had to make the alpha male stop this from happening, so that he would be the one spreading his genes. How? Enter jealousy. Nature must also have given women the arsenal necessary to keep hold of the alpha male - beauty, charm, and - in case of conflict with other females - deceit. Hence Nature made it such that women desire the alpha male to reproduce only with them - in other words that the alpha male was also monogamous. Herein lies the birth of conflict, as the alpha male is desired to be something other than he is.
Keep in mind that for Nature reproduction is MORE important than individual survival or flourishing. Hence the most powerful instincts are implanted to assure it. That is why the fires of jealousy are so strong, that is why love so easily turns to hate. You hear all the time about someone shooting their girlfriend's partner because of cheating on him. But if that same person who had sex with their girlfriend stole their car - they would be much less annoyed. Why? Because Nature has put extremely strong emotions to be associated with these sexual issues. That is why they interest us so much. Hence society must be organised in such a way as to MINIMISE the arising of such strong emotions, and the conflicts that they lead to.
So what are you saying? That our society is not organised as best as it could given our natural predispositions? Perhaps. Perhaps men should be allowed multiple wives so long as they can provide care for all of them, like it is in the Arab world. But apart from this - I see nothing wrong with our current system of organisation given our natural predispositions.
If you really believe this, your ideal state would be several shades more totalitarian than North Korea.
Why is protecting people from harming each other (because immorality means bringing harm to another) totalitarian?
Why are you assuming heterosexual men here? Also, people feel sexually aroused even when they don't personally consciously want a child. You know, sex is fun and feels good for the majority of people. People like to have it a lot.
Also, you know, your account of why women are naturally monogamous is actually pretty fascist. Women like to have sex too, and not only for bearing children, and you do know that women can still have sex while pregnant, right?
Nature's interest, as I said, is in reproduction. Homosexual sex cannot be explained by this, but must rather be explained by a derivative of these basic principles (it CAN be explained - but I don't see the point of going into it; it's not related to the explanation above in any way).
This argument above also explains why homosexuality is a minority position among men. Most are by FAR heterosexual, or otherwise bisexual (many for cultural reasons, such as in Ancient Greece or Ancient Rome)
Quoting discoii
Sexual arousal is the mechanism that Nature uses in order to get you to achieve its aims (reproduction). Otherwise, how could it get you to reproduce? Of course most people don't consciously desire reproduction, but rather "fun" or something like that. I am not saying that Nature doesn't bribe you as it were in order to get you to reproduce. Of course it does. But people, they are, however, most often unaware of how they will react to different situations that will occur, because they don't have a solid understanding of themselves. Many men don't understand a priori that they would feel extremely jealous if they saw other men having sex with whoever they see as their sexual mate. Their intelligence just isn't strong enough. Once it happens, then they start realising. So they get into all sorts of dangerous situations, because they don't understand the dangers.
Quoting discoii
I am talking about Nature's interest. Of course women love sex, otherwise how could Nature get them to have it?? Women could not have sex without getting pregnant in the past. Now, man has found a way to circumvent Nature's aims (and even this isn't very successful), as people who repeatedly do this, will reproduce less, and will in the end be replaced by those who reproduce more (Europe's population is declining - because we use condoms and have subverted Nature's interest - not a problem, in 200 years, those who use condoms will not exist anymore - Nature is smarter than us, in the end it keeps us as its slaves, even while we think in our arrogance that we are masters). Man, also because he is unaware of how Nature has made him - fails to realise that, even though pregnancies can be avoided now, this does not mean that sex can be allowed to go on completely free. Why? Because when I see another man having sex with my wife, even though I know she won't get pregnant, I still want to kill him. My natural impulse, which was developed and strengthened over millions of years, is and will always be there. You cannot overcome it. I will still feel terribly angry (much more angry than if you stole my car, beat me up, mocked me, etc.) Of course I may try to control it, but, I may not be able to (and it's reasonable that I may not be able to - you have no reason to expect me to). Nature gave me that instinct such that I would prevent others from approaching my sexual mate. I will go on having that instinct, because my subconscious brain does not understand condoms, avoiding pregnancies, etc. For it, sex = pregnancy, end of story.
Don't you find it interesting that you have this senseless impulse that allegedly was strengthened over millions of years, yet I, also a human, don't care whatsoever if my girlfriend fucks whomever? Plenty of societies historically weren't monogamous, or were monogamous but not limiting in the amount of sexual partners someone can have. In fact, when I was younger, I didn't care whatsoever how many people someone had sex with. I was conditioned to care when the soap operas and music and social symbols started entering my life and my social circle operated under such assumptions.
This is a fact of human life: heterosexual girls tend to like cock, heterosexual men tend to like pussy, homosexual men tend to like cock, and homosexual women tend to like both, and on and on. Except for the unusual few asexual beings, this is an observable phenomenon that neither of us can deny. But I can reject your claim that humans have this strengthened impulse to consider another person as property because... well, Ashley Madison exists, and that's millions of data points to support the contrary to your claim.
No matter how you try to rationalize your fascist views here, it doesn't fit empirical reality. The only thing you can say without a doubt about humans and sex is that they like to have sex. None of that overly abstruse justification of your secret desire to have a women as your personal property, your Excalibur Cock being the one true cock that you and only you may pull out from her vaginal sheath, is really justifiable empirically, whether historically or presently.
As far as biological evolution is concerned, if I have sex for personal interest (which is pleasure), then its aims are fulfilled. Full stop. Biological evolution has no conscious mind to realise that I could, in millions of years, find a way to circumvent this. So yes - my theory DOES say that men and women love and desire to have sex for fun. However, it explains the origin of this desire - Nature allows this desire because it fulfills its interests :)
Quoting discoii
You my friend. But most people, as I showed above, are STRONGLY against adultery, and would NEVER forgive their partners if they committed it. I didn't say there aren't deviations in Nature, which don't fit the general trend. Of course there are. But this says nothing about the natural tendency of human beings. So in order to universalise any element from your personal experience you need to make it fit. You can't. You just tell me you are like this, and therefore everyone is like this. I have my own peculiarities which don't agree with the natural tendency. For example, I wouldn't want more than one woman even if I could. Most men aren't like me, instead they agree with the natural tendency to want more than one woman if they can. For something to be a natural tendency it doesn't mean we all agree with it. Heterosexuality is a natural tendency, even though there are homosexuals (deviations from the natural tendency) out there. Men being polygamous is true, even if there are wierdos like me out there who are monogamous.
Quoting discoii
Thanks Captain Obvious, I didn't know that already.
Quoting discoii
No you can't reject it. Fact of the matter is that MOST people do not agree with such things. Ashley Madison is simply a community of outliers (and yes, even a community of 50 million outliers is nothing compared to the world's population of 7 billion).
All heavy-handed state measures are justified under the banner of 'protection'. This is what sets the Leviathan going - we ask the state to harm us instead of us harming each other...
Passing legislation on absolutely everything perceived as immoral simply codifies the prevailing norms and replaces individual agency with coercion. Think of the calamity of 1920s prohibition, now apply it to every social ill you can think of. It probably harms somebody to call them fat, or a dirty liar, etc. Would you like this to be illegal? If so, you're welcome to your police state.
Clearly not, since there are millions of users on Ashley Madison, and millions more on other websites that are meant for the same or similar purposes. The best you can do is claim that most people think they do not agree with such things. You can try to find a poll that supports your claim, but it would be entirely flawed since there's the pressure of not being honest in answering said polls. A site with millions of paying customers engaging in consensual sex with people that aren't their partner is a much more reliable measure of people's opinions here.
I find it interesting you decided to remove the part about homosexuals from my comment about the fact of human life. Oh, here's another fact: homosexuality is natural, people are usually born homosexuals, it isn't a derivation. Finally, last fact: your knight in shining armor Excalibur cock fantasies is so Victorian era, your views on sex originate from attempts by rulers to create a family unit and control women sexual reproduction and this is pretty well documented. Almost none of the rulers themselves actually had one spouse, but politically they aligned with religious sectors (morality police) to try to corral everyone else into this nonsensical and completely unnatural sexual arrangement. Really, the problem with people that would never forgive their partners for sleeping with other people is that they have some sort of sexual repression that they haven't yet resolved. Best way to resolve it currently? Sign up for an account on AshleyMadison.com.
Yes, and it should have a punishment according to the harm it causes. Maybe a fine of 5$ is enough for such a simple thing. Or maybe no punishment is necessary as it's taken as banter by the other. Anyway, it should be up to the insulted person to decide if he was sufficiently hurt to pursue the other with legal action, and whether the legal action will be worth the effort.
Quoting discoii
Yeah, 50 million out of 7 billion. Great! You proved it to me that they aren't outliers. Because they are MILLIONS!
Quoting discoii
There was an option not to answer in this poll. Also answers were anonymous. Again you are spewing bullshit because you're afraid you won't be able to carry on hurting other people in the future. Classic opressor. And yes, a site containing only people who agree with something, is certainly a reliable sample of the population that can be used to measure the population's opinion of that something in question. That's what they teach in statistics 101. Who the fuck are you kidding mate? You don't know basic statistics. Go back to school.
Quoting discoii
Homosexuality is a natural deviation of the tendency which exists towards heterosexuality. And yes, people are born homosexual. How does this suggest that they do not represent a natural deviation? A natural deviation implies that among a population of 100, only 1 is, let's say, homosexual. Yes, obviously that one will be born homosexual. But that doesn't mean that the tendency is homosexuality. You can't even understand the distinctions employed here.
Quoting discoii
Mate - go learn some history please. Please. This is embarassing. Name 6 rulers who had no spouses. Not to mention that there never was an attempt to control women's sexual reproduction... Only the communists would make you think so. Show me any ancient (or Victorian) first-hand source which documents an attempt by ANY ONE ruler to control women's sexuality. I don't care about revisionist history, I'm asking for real history, factual, as it happened. Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if you don't even know what revisionist history is. Being a learned man and an intellectual is not easy. It's not enough to complete school and have a few University degrees mate. You can still be the village idiot, even after you have all those qualifications.
Also, many women in our days support views which call for sexual morality. Look at how many women supporters Donald J. Trump has for example. Sexual morality has nothing to do with whether men and women enjoy sex or not. Of course they do. It has to do with preventing others from getting harmed. Smart men and women realise this. They're not against enjoying sex, they're against harming others while you enjoy sex.
Also sexual morality PREDATES religion, and has nothing to do with it. You don't have to believe in God (like I don't), to press on for sexual morality.
Quoting discoii
Ah - the old tactics. You disagree with my views on morality - just because you have a psychological problem. How to solve it? Just do what my moral view demands. Absolute, utter nonsense and smelly shit.
PS: What is worse about the revisionist theory against sexual morality is that it fails to explain adequately why most people are so against it (fails to match empirical evidence). Also it fails to explain even why it exists (lacks internal completeness). Whereas the normal theory for sexual morality explains its existence by tying it in to our biological evolution, which is necessary given the biological asymmetry between man and woman. You tell me people enjoy sex. You don't explain to me why? Why did they evolve to enjoy it? That is why the theory I presented trumps yours, without a shadow of a doubt. In terms of both explanatory power and fitting in with all the historical data that we have (because even if today's society was as you say, that means very little, since for thousands of years society was never like that).
Lots of people are in a reactionary mode with respect to morality. They hate "old fashioned morality" because it is the cold dead hand of the past. It was inflexible. It was intensely judgmental. It was restrictive, repressive, life-denying and punitive. (It was, and it is. The past is never past.)
What you are objecting to in the Ashley Madison site is the result of a confluence of various developments. Radical changes in the economy have produced a lot of economic instability and a decline in working class and middle class economic conditions which has undermined the family. Upheaval is, surprise surprise, socially disruptive.
Technology (everything from the transistor to the birth control pill) has also brought about destabilizing changes. The internet and the smart phone have created new fields of economic activity. Ashley Madison (for heteros) or Grindr (a hookup site for homos) are examples.
Take Grindr: Feeling the need to get laid? Like some cock? Don't want to go to a bar and sort through the dismal offerings? Your smartphone Grindr app will notify you if other Grindr members are in the vicinity--any vicinity--in the store, in the office, in the theater, in the neighborhood...wherever. A quick check of profiles, a message or two back and forth, and the party is on.
I'm beyond the age where Grindr is going to be of any use to me, but had it been available 40 years ago, I'd have been on it, most likely.
Is it dehumanizing to so-thoroughly commodify and routinize sexual access? Not in itself. After all, people have long used non-electronic means to do the same thing. I used to visit a park which was sort of like Grindr al fresco. Just show up at the right time and voila! Sex.
There are some good things one can say about the old fashioned family and about old fashioned morality. And there are a lot of bad things one can say about it as well. "That old-time religion" was a capable dehumanizer and alienator itself. It was oppressive, punitive, and stultifying.
Some of the benefits that were attributed to old-time religion and family are more properly attributable to economic growth and prosperity. People do better in stable, prosperous circumstances. People with jobs and economic security who see that there is a future in working and getting ahead commit to family creation and stable community. When things fall apart, when the center does not hold, people are reluctant to risk investment in family and community.
It's not a sudden change, Agustino. The changes you are lamenting were in the works for all of the 20th century, and longer. The sharp decline in religious participation began in the late 1950s. By the end of the 1960s the volume of the American religious establishment had been significantly deflated. And the deflation hasn't stopped. You are (un)fortunate enough to be living in an important transition period.
Chinua Achebe and William Yeats :p
Right BC. Unfortunately I am not disagreeing with anything you said there. My point is that some people, those who get married in closed marriages, do not want to take part in this. They want to keep their partners for themselves. If they are decieved and harmed, then they need the tools to protect themselves, and legally punish those who have harmed them. Otherwise, they will take a gun and go out there to do justice themselves. You want that to happen? Violence will always happen when people are oppressed. Right now, around the Western world, there are large masses of people who feel oppressed exactly for those reasons. Keep denying them any possibility to live as they want to live, and in 50-100 years time, their anger will build up, until it will explode in massive wars. And guess who will be the first to support them? The Church, which is still the richest institution out there. Guess in whose arms they will run? The Church. Of course! Because you refuse to care for them. That's why.
Not all people want closed marriages. Some do want them. If they want them, and then their partner decieves them, then they have been done an injustice. They need a way to protect themselves or to punish those who have done them wrong. Simple.
It has nothing to do with adultery being morally wrong or whatever. It just has to do with people who are decieved and done wrong. It's that simple really.
Furthermore such people should be treated RESPECTFULLY, instead of with scorn as discoii and other idiots do. Because disrespectful treatment also is oppressive and builds up hatred.
Agustino, 10% of all humans are estimated to be homosexual, and that's a very low ball estimate. Historically, people have fucked both men and women, and there are many, many examples of this not being an issue whatsoever. What you don't understand is that, even if you don't believe there is a God, all your views basically correspond to Victorian era Christian norms and values. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, it's a duck. I'm gonna have to break it to you: you're probably gay.
You might want to re-read what I said about history. I said that the rulers who set these sexual norms and rules, the ones you hold dear (no, they weren't hammered into through a million years of evolutionary struggle), all fucked multiple people, none of them had just one spouse. But the hypocrisy is that they enforced this whole notion of monogamous ethics and morality which you are spewing now.
If you are hurt from someone else having sex with people other than yourself, maybe it's time to re-think why it's painful and why you added unnecessary conditions to your being in a relationship with said person in the first place.
I never said that there is something wrong with being a deviation. (or that a deviation should try to be normal) I even said that I am a deviation in some regards you idiot. If I did say that it is wrong to be a deviation, please show me where I have. Let me guess - you won't be able to. That's right.
This is false. Show me proof. And keep in mind, do not include bisexuals. They are a separate category :)
And even if it was true. 10% is a deviation, it's not the natural tendency :)
Or maybe it's time for you to re-think why you want to oblige everyone to live like you. Or maybe it's time for you to re-think why, despite having no intellectual foundation for your theory, and failing to counter any of my arguments, you still attempt to hold an intellectually superior position. Or maybe you should really think if it's right for a person who agrees to be in an exclusive relationship with someone to have sex with other people. Maybe you really should :) Afterall that's why you have a brain. Let's see if you can use it.
Yes indeed - you are correct, and I misread. My apologies. Nevertheless, if you re-read what my theory says:
Quoting Agustino
You will be perhaps shocked to discover that it already accounts for men in power desiring and having more than one spouse. Since most of the absolute rulers in European history have been male, it is in perfect accord with the theory that they would be capable to express their real nature most fully. Their real nature according to the theory is polygamous. Hence it is to be expected that if most leaders were men, most of them would have more than one spouse. Why? Because nothing stopped them, hence their real nature manifested most fully.
Now, I also mentioned that woman is a monogamous animal by nature and that she wants man to be monogamous as well - hence the source of conflict. If you look at those leaders who have had concubines or consorts, which are many of the Chinese emperors, and also the Turkish Sultans, you will notice that the females were, most of the time, always scheming against each other, and always looking for a way to get their lord to favor one of them to the detriment of the other. What does the theory say? Exactly that. That women will try to keep their men only to themselves if they can.
Now we turn to the poor. Could a poor man have multiple wives? No. Did he want to? You bet! But why couldn't he? First of all - economic reasons -> he couldn't provide for them. Second of all, they wouldn't accept it, because it's in their nature to want the man for themselves (this reason combines with the first). So of course he would have to resort to cheating on his wife if he was to fulfill his nature completely. Hence why the popular image of man being the one who cheats, and not woman. Notice that this nowhere implies that man SHOULD fulfil his nature or not - there's no question of morality here, just describing what happens.
Now why is it that women also cheat sometimes? Nature's interest: women want the alpha male. Hence if they see a man whose genes fit with theirs better, they will be tempted to cheat. Most often this won't happen. Why not? Because even if the genes are better, they're not SIGNIFICANTLY better. Hence it is better for a woman to stay without cheating (which in the past was a very dangerous attempt, which would most likely result in death for her). It's not worth the opportunity cost. The theory which states that women will generally find a stable male to live with and then be tempted to cheat at a certain point in the month when their fertility is highest in an attempt to get some better genes implanted in them is, I believe, wrong. The reason is that this was an extremely dangerous attempt, and failure to hide it would result in death, or if not in death, then certainly in conflict with her male, as well as other women. Hence, I believe that by and large, Nature has eliminated these genes which compelled woman to cheat in those moments - since it was more likely for a woman and her offspring to survive if she stuck with a relatively weaker male all the time instead of trying to profit whenever she could to get better genes. This type of opportunism would be sanctioned by all, even the alpha male, who would fear she would do the same to him, if she found someone better than him. Also, another male would be unlikely to want to take care of another's offspring - hence if she already had children with him this would be a HUGE risk. This accounts for both why it is in woman's nature to be monogamous and to cheat less than men, and also for why they do cheat when they do (which is either a deviation, or the other male's genes are vastly superior and better matching which combines with other favorable circumstances, such as having no children yet, etc.).
Well probably it should start with something preventing them from causing future suffering in the same way. This may be declining them the right to marry someone else (talking about closed marriages now) for their whole life, or maybe for a fixed period of time. This includes the right of future closed marriage partners to know about their past (in other words, it needs to go on some record). They would still be allowed to form open marriages and open relationships freely.
It may be coupled with certain economic sanctions, such as having to provide their ex partner with a certain percentage of their income, especially if they have children with them.
That, to begin with, I think is sufficient. The punishment doesn't have to be big (in fact, making the punishment TOO big is probably detrimental, as people would stop getting married out of fear - rendering it an empty law, with no one to apply to). But a point must be made that people will not be allowed to be exploited, and that it is not culturally okay to do this. Everyone has a right to live as they wish, provided they do not interfere and harm others. In our day and age, the one who cheats is often seen as "cool" or "smart" by the media. If it's a woman, she's also seen as assertive, strong, and not allowing herself to play the role demanded by certain cultures. This is nonsense, and it is just as terrible as seeing the slave-owner as cool or smart. So long as harm is done, the action is and remains evil.
Damn right I am, and proud of it.
Quoting discoii
Now, now; let's not get carried away here. If at least 10% of men are gay, who has been getting my share all these years?
"Polymorphous perversity" seems to characterize human sexual behavior; people are capable of all sorts of sexual behavior either through opportunity or necessity. But sexual identity doesn't follow occasional behavior. A gay man who has sex with a woman once doesn't thereby become "heterosexual" and a straight man who has sex with another man once doesn't thereby become "homosexual" or even "bisexual".
You are wrong because it is not a "deviation" from human nature. This people are exactly what, as humans, they are. Humans are, in themselves, beings who are sometimes not heterosexual. The notion this is a "deviation" form what humans "normally" or "properly" is incoherent. It is an error formed out of supposing that higher numbers are what creates the "nature" of a being.
In reality, gay people no more deviate from heterosexual people than heterosexual people to from gay people. They are just different existing people with their respective sexual interests, attraction and feelings. There is no "norm" to deviate from. Just people as they are.
- Single women who think "I can raise a family all by myself and it will turn out just great"
- Married women who think "And we'll all live happily ever after."
- Men, single or married, who haven't really thought through what marriage entails.
- Couples who sign on the dotted line who think "Our love will last forever and nothing can go wrong."
- "Oh, money doesn't matter." It fucking matters a lot. Poverty is hard on marriage.
- All the sentimental claptrap and just plain hooey that society frosts marriage with.
Don't get me wrong: I think long lasting stable marriages are a social good, a desirable institution, and it should be protected. (Note to Agustino: Punishing everybody who fails isn't "protection" It's just more stupidity about marriage.)
But people who enter marriage need to be realistic, especially after the warm glow and rosy light fades -- maybe in a year or two, maybe longer, maybe less, maybe before the damned wedding is over.
Long term relationships (gay, straight, or otherwise) are not easy. Economic hardship; emotional upheaval; difficult pregnancies; difficult children (yes, Virginia; some children are difficult; some of them are little sons of bitches); too much clingy dependency; too much time together with no particular common interest; too much work; too little play (for both partners, together); bad sex (yes, Virginia; some people become unimaginative, dull, boring, uninspiring, etc. sex partners); chronic illness; bad housing. All kinds of things.
Many couples stay together through all these challenges (gay and straight ones both). But, a good share of marriages fail for one reason or another. It doesn't matter why. (No, Agustino -- it doesn't matter. That's why many states now have 'no-fault divorce'. If it didn't work, it didn't work. Punishing people won't make it better. It won't. It can't. It doesn't.)
There are ways of supporting marriage -- mostly things the American State is not willing to do and that the churches don't seem to be very good at in their own way. For instance, Income support for nuclear families would help. If they can't make ends meet, poverty isn't going to improve the marriage. Free pre-post natal care. It helps if pregnancies go well, and if problems are taken care of rather than neglected. Pre-marriage counseling (where couples are told the blunt and unappetizing facts of life) would help -- it might even forestall some marriages from happening.
Bureaucratic regimes like child support seem to be a good idea, but in practice it sometimes adds another layer of injustice for both the estranged parents. If we really thought children were important, we wouldn't have the hit or miss system of child support that we do. The state would support the children. (Milton Friedman -- hardly a left wing liberal -- and others thought that a minimum income would be a good thing. If the State was really interested in its families, in its children, it would do this.
Just to repeat: Punishing people for failed marriages is not going to help, Agustino. It just won't.
That's why we have divorce laws - so adults can end relationships and go forward in life.
Criminalizing personal relationships is about as dumb an idea there is -- which is why it failed and we decriminalized it. In short, we already tried this nonsense. It didn't work.
All through history it worked. Adultery was, in most societies, illegal under most conditions, for most of history. You cannot justify it not working simply because there's a gap in historical time when it's not happening. It will come back, fear not.
No, your statement is an error of inversion, supposing that higher numbers create the nature of a being, instead of realising that the nature of the being creates the higher numbers :)
All this post is a red-herring and straw-manning BC. You know it. Adultery is not a requirement for a failed marriage. Hence it does not follow that punishing adultery punishes failure in marriage. Failure in marriage is divorce. There's nothing wrong if someone who wants to commit adultery first divorces and then does it. In fact, that's the right way to do it, and shouldn't be punished.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Yes it does. "We don't get along, we should divorce" is different than "Why the fuck did you cheat on me??". Understood? One of them involves much stronger emotional reactions than the other.
Quoting Bitter Crank
You can repeat as much as you want. All through this thread you've attempted to change the topic in subtle ways. The topic is clear, and you have failed to counter any of the arguments. This is a straw-man and a red-herring. Adultery is not "failed marriage". Divorce is failed marriage, and does not require adultery in order to happen.
Quoting photographer
Ah Mr. Photographer, why the need to insult? I suppose your question was not asked in bad faith was it? Asking a question just to shoot down the answerer regardless of the answer is most definitely the most rank nonsense, and betrays an intellectual dishonesty in openly investigating the issues at hand. Not right for a philosopher. If you didn't ask the question in bad faith, then you implicitly agree that there is an answer to your question, otherwise why ask the question? If you implicitly agree there is an answer, the please enlighten me what this answer is, as clearly you think you know better than I :)
Asking a question like that, and expecting me to give you a fully detailed answer that is ready to be passed by Parliament is nonsense. I am merely sketching an answer. Of course my answer will have HUNDREADS of holes and potential difficulties. Laws like these require hours upon hours of work by groups of people to get them in shape before they can be passed. However, I am sure the difficulties you raised can be resolved. I am sure that with a bit of effort you can resolve them as well.
Quoting photographer
Yes
Quoting photographer
Until divorce. In theory they could divorce and then re-marry under an open marriage if both of them want to change. But remember, it has to be both. If only one wants to change, then they will just divorce, end of story.
Quoting photographer
No - it is one partner enslaving and forcing the other to agree... What do you think? Of course, as it involves both partners it does require mutual agreement.
Quoting photographer
Tough luck, it's a percentage of income he needs to pay. Even if his income is lower, he can still pay it. Of course the punishment is supposed to be sufficiently harsh to prevent the adulterer from harming their partner. If they no longer want to live together, they should divorce. Then he can go around having sex as much as he wants to without having a criminal record. Did anyone force them to make their partner go through intense emotional turmoil? No. Therefore they have done it knowingly, and deserve the punishment.
Quoting photographer
If the woman is guilty, then this will count as a strong reason NOT to have the kids stay with her :) .
See Mr. Photographer... was that difficult? I'm sure you could've done it as well, if only you were a little bit more constructive, as opposed to destructive.
The OP seems to assume monogamy is the only moral relationship between partners but there's no proof for this.
And I repeatedly state that people who want to live in open marriages, or other non-monogamous ways should be allowed to live so. Proof that you haven't read the thread properly. How could you understand?
Quoting Agustino
@Benkei - See? These are everywhere. Please read the thread completely next time instead of addressing some imaginary straw-man of yours. So your statement:
Quoting Benkei
Is most certainly false.
Your assumption is still very much there but you don't seem to be aware of it.
Where do I indicate that they shouldn't be allowed? They should also be allowed. But this OP wasn't about that.
So they are allowed now. Good to have that clear.
In that case, after 3 pages it isn't clear to me what the problem is with people breaking a promise? What's so horrible about breaking a marriage vow as opposed to, say, hiding your mounting debts from gambling from your spouse?
People lie and cheat all the time, most types of lying and cheating isn't criminalised because it's perfectly human. Going by the number of divorces and cheating even before the existence of Ashley Madison, perfectly human.
Finally, if we're going to criminalise this, we should jail every hooker and mistress for tempting married men from having sex outside of marriage as well. But we all know that in the end the decision to cheat is a personal one that we cannot blame on alcohol, the existence of Ashley Madison, hookers or mistresses.
It depends what the consequences of breaking that promise are. Hiding your mounting debts from your spouse is a serious problem yes. But if you told her, is she likely to have a psychological trauma from it? No. She will just get angry, not speak to you for a week, and then she'll try to sort it out together with you, or seek to divorce you. On the other hand if you break your marriage vow, she could end up having serious psychological trauma because of it, assuming that the marriage vow was important to her (and to many people it is). Afterall, you hear that someone shot their husband because they cheated. You don't hear that they shot their husband because he lied about his debt.
These sexual issues are important to human beings. There is no denying that. That is why all through history we see people fighting over sex: to let it free, not to let it free. All religions speak about sex, none skips it. Why? Because this problem is terribly important in the consciousness of man. Even in the modern liberal consciousness which wants sex to be just like eating, it is terribly important. But fact of the matter is that sex isn't just like eating. We never killed someone because he ate the wrong meat. But we certainly killed them because they had sex with the wrong person. Why? Because to many human beings, sex is terribly important. How sex is practiced is terribly important. So important that the whole psychological well-being of many depends on it.
And yes, I agree with you, it is completely irrational that sex is so important. But it still doesn't change it. Man is an irrational being. In man's consciousness, sex will always remain terribly important. Why? Because we have been biologically programmed to be so. There is nothing more important to Nature, who is our master, than sex (reproduction). Hence Nature uses the most powerful of all instincts to govern someone's sex life - more powerful than those which govern even one's own survival sometimes. Reason cannot oppose these instincts. That is why all it can do is build a society which minimises conflicts arising due to sexuality. A completely free society when it comes to sexuality, as most neo-liberals want, doesn't do this. It makes segments of the population terribly angry, it puts social pressure on them, disregards their cultures and values, and promotes oppression. So the only option is to have different rules for different people, depending on which type of sexual life they want to live. That is what Reason can do.
No, because they are not specifically aimed at closed marriage men. Prostitution should go on exactly as it does. So should other dating websites. It's just those which are aimed specifically at people in closed marriages that should be taken off because they are promoting what would be an illegal kind of adultery.
What's for dinner? Beef, you say? In that case, we're going to beat you to death right now.
Anti-beef-eating Hindu zealots killed a Moslem man for allegedly eating beef, and there have been similar incidents.
You may have seen this video of an Afghan woman being beaten to death by an enraged mob for allegedly burning a Koran. (The court found her innocent of the charge -- after she had been beaten to death in front of a mosque. Way to go, guys.)
Nothing to do with adultery of course (except that in some parts of the world women get stoned to death for adultery).
Your very hard line on adultery is the kind of thinking that can lead to this sort of enraged violence. You seem to be fixated on this issue -- don't know why. Was your wife unfaithful to you? If so, you might be allowing your personal feelings to be directing your thinking here. That's a very human thing too. God knows my thinking has been directed by anger on more than a few occasions. At times my mental dungeons were very well stocked with people I've felt wronged by.
As far as the article says "Villagers in northern India beat a Muslim man to death and injured four others who were accused of smuggling cows to be slaughtered for beef". Slaughtering beef is illegal in India, so those mentally retarded peasants beat up the poor man thinking they are doing justice. However - you have to remember slaughtering beef is illegal in India - so if someone does plan to slaughter beef, they are planning an illegal activity and nevertheless deserve punishment (even if this punishment is not getting beaten up, or killed).
It seems that killing for eating the wrong type of meat also exists, and I was wrong there. In fact, anything exists, even 50 year old virgins. Why would I be surprised...
Nevertheless, I believe that getting killed for adultery was, historically, much more common than getting killed for eating meat.
Quoting Bitter Crank
No, it is what is required to prevent such enraged violence. Otherwise, people who are done injustices will take matters into their own hands and will commit exactly this type of injustice that neither of us likes.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I am not married BC. If I had been married, and my wife cheated on me with the intent to cheat on me (this excludes possibilities that she was too drunk to know what was happening, or she got raped, etc.), then I would have kicked her out of the house (if she lived in my house) and divorced her the next day (even if I had kids with her). We all have things we can't tolerate, here's what I can't tolerate. From the girlfriends I had in the past, only one cheated on me, and I left her as soon as I found out.
How are penalties for adultery an exploitation of women considering that men are prone to cheating more often than women? :)
True enough, we all do have a string of things we can't tolerate.
So be it then. Sign a prenuptial agreement when or if you get married, specifying that the marriage will suffer sudden death if your partner can be proven to have strayed from the strait and narrow. She may wish to impose conditions too. For instance, "One notice of late payment on the light, water, gas, telephone, mortgage, or credit card bill and you are OUT." That way you'll both know in advance what you (plural) are getting in to.
She might also meter your time on philosophy forums, as well. "Sorry, 5 minutes too long. I thought i made it clear that philosophers are no damn good. Pack your bag and get out."
Maybe in The Handmaiden's Tale, which I suspect you would consider utopia. It must be some solace to you that ISIS and the Taliban are on your side.
In any case, the delusions of the Right become more elaborate the closer it gets to demographic extinction.
I know that. It's only fair that she does. I've learned after my first girlfriend (who was the one who cheated on me) the same strategies you suggest, and so I've used them with my other girlfriends (and yes, they also imposed their conditions lol - I tend to be quite good at following orders though, and I like it. I was raised in a quite military-like environment though). I'm also quite careful with whom I choose to date, so a priori I'm unlikely to date someone who will cheat on me (I was also careful even with my first gf, she was a good person at heart - shouldn't have left her esp. since she only cheated once and I found out about it a long time after - I think she wouldn't have cheated again, but was too embarassed to tell me herself - had she told me first, I probably wouldn't have left - but - history plays out as it does :) ), because loyalty is one of the character traits I value most. I also value loyalty like no other quality in friends. If they are loyal - they are allowed a lot of other defects. So I've always built both friendship and love on a foundation of loyalty.
Anyway, it's less about me. I'm smart enough (I hope at least) to manage this. But I've seen so many people, family members, as well as aquintances suffer because of these issues. It's a pity that society doesn't do anything to prevent them. Not everyone realises what they want until tragedy hits them. Many don't know they want a loyal husband until they find a disloyal one - often it is already too late to change... Not everyone is smart or can otherwise commit the mistakes that I did at an early age to learn. I'm just lucky in this regard.
I didn't know we were talking about "the Right" in this thread man... I think you made a mistake, you should move the conversation to the other thread :p
Pretending your views aren't rightwing won't help you here, boy.
What makes you think that I care if they are "right-wing" or "left-wing"? As far as I'm aware, and as far as I made clear all through out the thread, I do not wish to impose a way of life on others that they do not accept (I want to give everyone the possibility to live as they wish), and I do not want others to impose on people ways of life that they don't accept (I want different ways of life to be respected). To my mind, it is you, who like ISIS, like the Taliban, like the Handmaiden's Tale, etc. seek to impose ways of life and force everyone to conform to one standard. I don't. There are people who are different than I, and who deserve to live as they like it so long as they do not harm other people. I've shown in this thread that I am pro polygamism, pro open marriages, etc. if you think these views are similar to those of ISIS, Taliban, or Handmaiden's Tail, what can I say? However, I do think that your ATTITUDE (not your views) is fascist and extremist, and I think other people would agree with me.
You are still making the same error, Agustino. Numbers have no relevance here. The nature of anyone is their nature. Higher numbers doesn't make any being because each one of us is an individual. All a higher number signifies is that, in the given situation, there are more people with a given trait. It doesn't define the presence of any sort of trait as "natural" or "proper" over any other.
This, a version of the"naturalistic fallacy," is one of the more deep-seated ideas of prejudice. It is the understanding someone is a lesser part of the community just because their aren't as many people with some trait and they happen to be different to a larger group of people in some way. People fail all too easily for this bullshit because they mistake it for describing the world. It is not description of the world. "The Truth" of human existence it is not. It is an absolute failure to take states of the world on their own merits and describe them.
The nature of an individual is their unique nature yes. The nature of man in general, is the natural tendency.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
But I do not consider homosexuals, etc. to be a "lesser part of the community". That is a moral judgement on them. I am not making a moral judgement on them. I am just saying that they represent a natural deviation. The human race will NEVER produce the majority of its members as homosexuals. Why? Because there is a tendency towards heterosexuality and bisexuality. It doesn't mean everyone will be heterosexual or bisexual. So the tendency towards heterosexuality+bisexuality is the CAUSE of the fact that the majority of the human race isn't homosexual. It's purely descriptive. It serves to explain why the human race isn't formed primarily of homosexuals.
It passes no judgement, either that this is good, or that this is bad. You could in fact perhaps find arguments that we should all be homosexuals, that it would be more moral for the human race to be formed in majority of homosexuals, and NEVERTHELESS grant that there is a natural tendency towards heterosexuality. Obviously in this case the natural tendency will be evil. Schopenhauer thought our natural tendencies were evil for example. So do not mistake natural tendency with morality. The two don't have anything to do with each other - there is no necessary connection between them. A natural tendency can be either good or bad, or in fact neither, depending on how you judge it.
The fact that you consider a deviation bad is just that - a moral judgement. I don't make that moral judgement. For me, a deviation can be either good, or bad, or neither. In many regards, I too represent a deviation of mankind. Most people are not like me in many regards. Is this good? Is this bad? These are all secondary questions, which are moral in nature. I do not make that moral judgement - I am doing descriptive philosophy now.
Will the village idiot disconsider homosexuality if he is told they are a deviation? Probably - but that just represents his distortion and misuse of language, and the unquestioned assumption that what is natural is good, and deviations are always bad. So perhaps the village idiot shouldn't be explained homosexuality in these terms. He doesn't have the capacity to understand it in these terms. Perhaps your terms are better, and are more likely to produce the desired effect. But these are questions of rhetoric, not truth. My description is superior to yours, strictly from an intellectual point of view because it accounts for why the majority of mankind is not and will never be made up of a majority of homosexuals.
You do consider gay people to be a lesser part of the community. Your basic understanding of them is that they are deviant. They aren't what a (larger) mass of human is, so you consider them to fall outside the truth of what makes are human. In your understanding they fly against what "makes" a human, that "universal" generality which (supposedly) represents the nature of all humans. It's not purely descriptive. It's normative all the way down. You think being gay ought to fall outside the representation of what makes a human just because their aren't so many gay people. You aren't willing to accept that some humans have a "tendency" to be gay merely because there are less of them.
Nonsense - facilitated by your misunderstanding of Aristotelian philosophy.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
You think there is no nature of man. But I DO need a nature of man to explain why most people aren't homosexuals. They aren't homosexuals because there is a natural tendency towards heterosexuality. Why is there such a natural tendency? Because of evolution which encourages reproduction overall. Homosexuals cannot reproduce, therefore, evolutionary speaking, there will be less of them, because evolution ensures that over time the majority of the species can contribute to the reproduction effort.
If you deny there is a nature to man you CANNOT explain the above. It's a shortcoming of your worldview. And yes - it's a DESCRIPTIVE short-coming of your worldview.
Nope... I'm merely identifying the Platonic error of Aristotelian philosophy: the mistake of thinking of things as an expression of logic, as opposed to individual things expressing logic.
I know you do. And that's your error. You are unwilling to accept humans in-themselves. Unwilling to merely understand that some people are gay and other people or not. There is no "natural tendency" towards anything here. Just humans as they are. Rather than accept that, you look high an low for "justification," for a reason for humans to exist as the do, to the detriment of your understanding of humans and what they mean. It's the desire for God, the logically necessary as a state of the world, all over again.
You're even making basic errors of biology here. Gay people can reproduce. They don't even need any sort to modern reproductive technology to do so. Just because someone is gay doesn't mean they are limited to sleeping with people of the opposite sex. Gay people can and have, whether it be by choice or by the social obligations of the time, reproduced throughout history.
There is no reason some people are gay and other are not. Yes, it's true, that exclusively (cis gender) gay sex doesn't lead to reproduction and this may have a casual effect the passing down of genetic traits. It's not logically necessary though. We might have had a world where gay people were so interested in reproducing that they always had some sex with someone of the opposite sex to do so. We might have had a generation where everyone is gay and not interested in reproducing, and so it died out. Any such state is an expression of human existence, not aa "rule" which determines the logically necessary state of humans and all their traits.
What you are looking to explain doesn't need explanation. It's a failure to understand the contingent nature of states of the world, of the existence of humans.
And this is why your position is prejudiced against gay people: you are unwilling to accept they are just human like anyone else. Rather, you insist, there must be some reason these deviant mistakes of a human have appeared, why these people are different to the "proper" humans who follow the "natural tendency."
The lack of the "explanation" in my view is not a shortcoming. It's why it is accurate. It's the view that finally dispenses with the nonsense of trying to define humans by something other than their own existence.
Because you denied they were rightwing, and you keep promoting a typical vapid rightwing agenda
Then they are bisexual?
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
I do accept they are human like everyone else. I also don't consider them "mistakes", nor have I ever used that word, which implies a moral judgement of the condition. Nor do I identify everyone else as "proper". Those are all your designations which you input on me.
Did I say there was? Read carefully please. I said there is a reason why the majority of people are not, and will never be gay. If you say there is no reason, you're welcome to believe so. Then it's just a brute fact that the majority is not gay, and there is no explanation. But it doesn't change the fact that you refuse an explanation for it... because in truth, there is an explanation. I just gave it to you.
In science there is also a reason why given a box full of gas molecules, you can expect those molecules to be randomly distributed instead of concentrated at one point in the box. There is a reason for such things. And it has to do with natural tendencies. Gas has a natural tendency to distribute to fill its container. Why? Because of so and so law. Of course you have the right to tell me that every gas molecule is an individual, and it's just a brute fact that individuals are positioned as they are. But that is just refusing to see a necessary pattern, where a necessary pattern exists :)
Even sexual attraction isn't relevant sometimes. There are instances of sexual identity is question of politics, such as with Lesbian Feminism or those who refuse a sexual identity, regardless of who they are attracted to, because they think it unnecessarily sense to back people in and is actually disconnected from describing human sexual behaviour.
You don't I'm afraid. You might have not used the word per say, but that doesn't mean you aren't thinking it. I have, indeed, put the designation on you, but that is because, as in many instance of the "naturalistic" fallacy, you are utterly incapable of doing it yourself. That's why the "naturalistic fallacy" is so dangerous. It works on the idea that a prejudiced and normative stance is doing nothing but describing the world as it is.
Well if you refuse to believe me, I think there is no point in having a conversation. If this is your premise, what point is there in me responding to you? You won't believe me anyway. You will keep on saying that I am thinking it, even if I am telling it to your face that I'm not.
Us having an intellectual conversation presupposes that we trust that each other thinks what he says he thinks. If you're not going to trust what I say I think, then the conversation must end here, as a fundamental underlying assumption of our conversation has been severed. I basically am put in a position where I can no longer communicate with you regardless of what I do.
I also did it in this very thread to discoii once. I did it to Thorongil in the other thread. If you were right on this, I would admit it. But you're just not. You're not even close. I think you should have the intellectual integrity to at least admit it. It would make these forums an even better place than they are :)
"Explanations" are neither accurate (as each states is defined in-itself) nor is it necessary, as merely pointing out, for example, that a greater number of non-gay people exist because of some cause be it (genetics, environment or anything else) gives a full account of the situation. There is no need to have an "explanation" of why some people aren't gay, for their existence accounts for that entirely.
Okay I understand that you personally don't see a need for having explanations. I'm saying, however, that there are explanations for some things in reality - even if you refuse to see them or acknowledge their existence.
And it is the philosophical idea which grounds a whole host of prejudice because, supposedly, any humans is meant to fit the "explanation" by their nature.
Logically, we are given by nothing but ourselves. These "explanations" are a category error. They are a substitution of our words and ideas, our fantasies, for understanding and description of the world. An unwillingness to look at the world any understand it for what it is, drawn out a desire to consider ourselves the logically necessary result of a governing origin force (e.g. God, PSR, reproduction, etc.,etc..).
So says every user of the naturalistic fallacy.
I know what I'm talking about here, Agustino. This form or prejudice goes unnoticed by it proponents and takes a long while to die, for they are under the illusion they are merely telling the truth about the world and so feel compelled to protect the task of accurate description. I can tell you now, you will not admit are wrong because you can't even see the mistake your making. So concerned about the "natural tendency," you aren't even stopping to think about people, who they are and what you are saying about them when you suggest they are deviants from the norm.
I should say that I do trust what you are saying: I know what you are thinking and arguing, as you have said. My point is in addition to that. What is at stake it not your ability to communicate or what you mean in your claim, but rather your knowledge and understanding of your thoughts and words in relation to society. I am saying you a missing something very important about the relationship of your thoughts and words to the world.
It isn't a question of trust. I'm not stuck in an unknowing state where I am unsure about of what you really mean, what you are thinking and what you are doing. Here I'm not speculating in the face of an unknown. Rather, I am talking about something you are doing, a feature of your understanding of the world. One which you haven't noticed.
No doubt you don't, yet, have the understanding to talk in terms of this argument. But that's the whole point me making the comment: to point out something you missed, that you haven't understand.
Personally, I don't have a problem with deviance. Where there is a norm, there is deviance. Viva le Déviance!
Kinsey (this goes back to the 1940s, 1950s) proposed that human sexuality was a continuum between exclusive homosexuality and exclusive heterosexuality. In between are an unknown number of the male population who are quite capable of performing in a homosexual encounter. (This is not to say that... oh, maybe 1/3, of males are willing to be receptive partners in anal intercourse, or are indifferent to being the receptive partner in oral sex. Getting a blow job is less of a challenge than giving one, and being expected to swallow semen.) Most straight men don't engage in gay sex.
However, a smaller share of the otherwise straight male population (6%? 8%? X%?) are capable of assuming all 4 homosexual roles (not all at once--they should be so lucky) for a period of time. An unknown portion of males can perform equally well with men and women. AND some otherwise essentially gay men are capable of performing heterosexually, and fathering children, without being bisexual. They just can. It depends, I suppose, on how specific their arousal system is.
I disagree a bit with WOD: I don't just happen to be gay, just like black people don't "happen to be black." Black people are black because their parents are black. Gay people aren't gay because their parents were gay (they almost certainly weren't) but something shifts the distribution of sexual preference from 100% straight to something less than 100%. I'm interested in what that something is.
You can rest secure in the immense remoteness that you will wake up gay tomorrow. 99.999999% of the time, people who go to bed straight, wake up straight. (If your partner's adultery makes you unhappy, you'd be a lot unhappier waking up as a gay man. Why don't straight men behave like gay men? Because straight women don't let straight men behave that way.)
People are black because their parents are black. Some gay people may be gay because their parent s were gay. (or rather, their is a genetic trait passed down the generations which results in someone being one thing rather than something else). These are just descriptions of causality.
Agustino isn't taking about causality though. They are talking about identity, about definition, about what defines someone as a "natural" person. What they are doing (and you are to a lesser extent) is trying to define humans through some notion of what they are meant to be, rather than through describing how they exist.
The assumption begins that, by their nature, humans are white or heterosexual by default, such that something is causing a "shift" that turns someone black or gay, as if the people in question were white or heterosexual when they began their lives, only to be "shifted" away from human nature by those "deviant" genes.
There is no such thing as "the shift." If someone has genetics which result in them being black or gay, they never existed as a person without that genetic code. Their genetics haven't shifted them from a "natural default" of white (i.e. white skin with other genes) or heterosexual (i.e. heterosexual with other genes), they've been that way so long as they've existed with those genes.
What is at stake here is the possibility of gay people and how that relates to humanity. The "deviance" of being gay is a failure to understand that humans are sometimes gay. It's defined on the assumption all humans are, by default, not gay and that something "shifts" them into the improper, for humans, state of homosexuality. Understanding that some humans are, by their nature, gay is missing.
No, it's just that you're irrationally afraid of any idea which you perceive could possibly ground any "prejudice". I'm not. If there was an intellectually sound case for homosexuality being wrong, then I would have no choice but to believe it. This is intellectual integrity. It is looking with open eyes for the truth, instead of rejecting stuff a priori, as you do, because they insult your personal sensibilities. You probably would a priori refuse any idea which judged homosexuality to be wrong. I don't. I look with clear eyes to see what is there. So far I have not found an idea justifying homosexuality to be wrong, therefore I do not believe it is wrong. But I'm not afraid of looking.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
No, this is just laughable. We are given by our parents. Logically.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
How quaint that you assume I consider myself logically necessary, while you are the one who implies each being is logically necessary. To wit: "Logically, we are given by nothing but ourselves".
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Okay, we will analyse this together, and I will show you that you are absolutely wrong, beyond any possibility of doubt. What is a naturalistic fallacy?
Well it could be three things:
I. Deriving an "ought" out of an "is" -> "John is black, therefore he ought to be black"
II. Assuming that if a quality necessarily accompanies another, the two must be identical -> "Pleasure is equivalent with goodness, because the latter is always associated with the former in nature"
III. Appealing to nature -> "Heterosexuality is the correct sexuality (and homosexuality is wrong) because it is the natural tendency"
Now, notice that this only applies to syllogisms. For example, the following syllogism commits the naturalistic fallacy:
1. Homosexuality is a natural deviation.
2. Therefore homosexuality is wrong.
This commits the naturalistic fallacy (of type III). Why does it commit the naturalistic fallacy? Because it's a non-sequitur. It requires another premise to draw that conclusion.
1. Homosexuality is a natural deviation.
2. Natural deviations are unwanted or wrong.
3. Therefore homosexuality is unwanted or wrong.
Now, if the premises above are true, then there is NO NATURALISTIC FALLACY. Most moderns fail to realise this, and scream fallacy of composition, naturalistic fallacy, etc. without even realising what they're saying. Again - most moderns are not intellectuals. Most moderns have strong moral convictions which come before any intellectual investigation, and hence all their intellectual investigation is necessarily biased as it aims to defend their a priori convictions. They are not honest.
Now - there is no way for you to show that I commit a naturalistic fallacy. Absolutely no way. Why?
1. Homosexuality is a natural deviation.
2. Therefore homosexuality is wrong.
I accept 1 and deny 2. Therefore there is no possibility of a naturalistic fallacy whatsoever. It is you who is seeing a naturalistic fallacy there, because you are the one making it. Out of your irrational fear that there could be an argument showing homosexuality is wrong (and how dare there be, because a priori you have decided there's nothing wrong with homosexuality), you want to deny even this possibility. But you can't. Because to do it, you have to establish a necessary connection between 1 and 2. And if you manage to do that, then you yourself commit the naturalistic fallacy.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Yes, and you are so concerned to make sure that homosexuality isn't wrong, that you will not even look at the truth, because the truth admits the possibility that it could be wrong.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
No I am not. I have stated that in men of inferior intellectual capabilities, the idea that homosexuality is a natural deviation will lead to the conclusion that homosexuality is therefore wrong. But this is just because most people, unquestioningly and unknowingly (just like you), hold the assumption that what is natural is good. A naturalistic fallacy, as you like to say :)
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Me too. I am pointing out the irony that you are the one committing a naturalistic fallacy and then projecting this unto me. Why are you committing it? Because you are afraid of what you may find.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Genetic variation? Genes don't copy exactly from parents to children, so I expect that homosexuality is always the effect of genetic variation, that's why it is ultimately unavoidable, and a necessary feature of the world. What I mean is that the existence of homosexuality as a natural deviation is logically necessary (or otherwise inevitable) given evolution and the biological constraints that exist on reproduction.
This is most peculiarly false. There is no assumption that humans are 'by default" not gay. In fact a particular human is "by default" not anything - it cannot be said a priori, since it is an empirical matter.
You just shifted the goal-posts back in your previous post as well. Fine. Then I'll shift my argument to there is a natural tendency for the proliferation of non-gay genes. Happy? You don't realise perhaps. It is a priori impossible for you to show what you are seeking to show without committing a naturalistic fallacy. You can go on, but you'll just be making a fool out of yourself.
This is the naturalistic fallacy, Agustino. The idea there is a such thing as "deviation" in human nature, as that must a priori, suppose what humans are meant to be. Like any trait of human, being gay is not a "natural deviation," it is just something some humans are.
Where the naturalistic fallacy is defined IS NOT in making the explicit claim than some state of humanity is better than another, but rather in the basic understanding of something before we even begin to make any explicit comments on its worth.
Since 1 is the naturalistic fallacy, this doesn't help you on bit. Nor does your argument make sense here. No moral case is made by nature. Nothing about "nature" would ever tell us about the morality or immorality of homosexuality.
That's always an argument given by ethics, not the nature of something's existence. The form of argument you are considering might show homosexuality to be wrong is impossible. Nothing about the existence of gay people would ever show being gay was moral or immoral. Any argument which show homosexuality to be right or wrong is given on the basis of ethics, not that some state of the world exists. Examining what is "natural" doesn't answer the question. That's is why I reject your premise (1) and and explicit arguments (i.e. the method of examining what is "natural" and then supposing it might give an ethical answer) about worth which are drawn out of it.
Nope. This is not what a naturalistic fallacy is. Neither is my idea supposing that a particular human being ought to be in any way. That's your addition, which is indeed the naturalistic fallacy.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
G.E. Moore, David Hume, Philippa Foot et al. all disagree with this :)
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Bingo. These are your blind spots. You assume these to be necessary. Why? Because you seek to justify your own personal sensibilities.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
One cannot be the naturalistic fallacy - you have to point to one of the three versions of the naturalistic fallacy and tell me which one is it. Don't make up your own definitions. These are the definitions that philosophers have used through history, so if you make a claim using their language, please defend it using commonly accepted definitions instead of special pleading.
No... it is necessary because of the distinction of "is" and "ought." No observation of an empirical state is a moral justification. Logically, the "natural" arguments you are so proud of examining do not form an ethical argument.
They could. If you grant and make explicit all the premises. I don't intend them to in my discourse. But you could read something like Philippa Foot's Natural Goodness :) The distinction of "is" and "ought" doesn't necessarily imply that an "ought" can never be derived from an "is" (while it does necessarily imply that an "is" cannot be derived from an "ought"). Just that this requires other premises to be justified.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
This is wrong. The natural explanation accepts that gay people are inevitable and necessary, as I've argued in response to BC.
There are plenty of ethical arguments made on the grounds of existing states. We do it all the time. In fact, it's the entire point of ethics. Ethics are about dealing with states of existence. But these are about the "natural (i.e. that which exists)" which is moral or immoral, NOT the good and bad which is immoral or immoral because "nature." (Foot's arguments pretty much fall under this).
[quote=Agustino]This is wrong. The natural explanation accepts that gay people are inevitable and necessary, as I've argued in response to BC.[/quote]
Missing the point. The problem has never been that your argument hasn't accepted gay people as necessary or inevitable. Rather, it is that it holds they don't make sense, for, supposedly, they do not fit what makes a human (and so are "deviants," as opposed to merely other humans with a different trait).
Yep -> deriving an "ought" (ethics) from a set of "is"'s (facts) :)
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Nope, it doesn't hold this. Gay people make sense as they are an inevitable occurence. That's what something making sense means. It means that it fits in with the rest, and there is a necessary connection established.
Anything we find though, as ethical important not because it is "natural" , but rather because it is the "natural" state with (im)moral significance. Your arguments get this backwards. You think it is nature which is important to ethics when it, in fact, it is ethics which are important to nature.
"Making sense" does not mean that it merely fits with the rest. It means understanding it amounts to knowing it makes sense, that it not in conflict with what is logical, what is appropriate, what is to be expected, of the world. It is to know that being gay is not "deviant," but rather that human, like any other trait we might possess.
My natural theory has nothing to do with immanence or transcendence - therefore this is nonsense.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Sure. So what? I never said the opposite.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Yes, it is not in conflict with what is expected of the world. I agree. Neither does my theory say that it is in conflict :)
You aren't thinking clearly. My point with "immanence" was to point out how ethical significance is an expression of states of the world (i.e. an "is" which has (im)moral significance), rather than something determined by states of the world (i.e."ought" derived from "is" ). We might, indeed, say your natural theory has nothing to do with immanence.
That's the problem. You treated ethical significance as if it was something defined from outside itself (i.e. (Im)moral by "nature," by the "is"), rather than understanding it to be an immanent expression of some states of existence (i.e. some "nature" is moral or immoral ).
[quote= ""Agustino"]Sure. So what? I never said the opposite. [/quote]
You literally said the opposite TWO POSTS ago (not to mention all the other ones before that which were expressing the same idea), when you insisted my arguments about (im)moral states of existence were a case of deriving an "ought" for an "is."
Let me remind you:
[quote= "Agustino"]Yep -> deriving an "ought" (ethics) from a set of "is"'s (facts)[/quote]
Nope. That's not how it works. We have description of ethical significance (ought) expressed by states of the world (is). It is the exact opposite of deriving an "ought" from an "is."
[quote= "Agustino"]Yes, it is not in conflict with what is expected of the world. I agree. Neither does my theory say that it is in conflict [/quote]
It's not question of saying they are in conflict though. Rather it is question of whether the understanding IS in conflict. And it is. It considers gay people don't make sense as humans. It holds them to be "Other," to be "deviant." It might not say gay people are in conflict with what makes sense for humans, but it understands them to be.
This is again a very complicated way of trying to get away with it. Ethical significance is an expression of states of the world = "ought" derived from "is", and it also necessarily follows that tis is something determined by the states of the world. What you wrote above is logically contradictory.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
No. Ethical significance is in the relation of things. Your ontology of "states of existence" is nonsense as well, and cannot be used to derive anything from it. Existence is dynamic... there's no question of "states" here. It's a flow, a relation amongst states.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
That's because they are.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
The exact opposite of deriving an "ought" from an "is", is deriving an "is" from an "ought". Is this what you mean? If you don't, then you're misusing language.
Ethical significance expressed by "states of the world", is exactly the same as deriving (an intellectual activity of abstraction) the "ought" out of the "is". Of course the "ought" is inside the "is", otherwise how the fuck can you derive it from it? Again this is nonsense. Why is it impossible to derive an "is" from an "ought"??? Precisely because the "ought" is in the "is" and not the other way around. But I don't need to make this statement, because to begin with you are going along the wrong lines, and your thinking lacks rigor and clarity.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
You are conflating "deviant" with "natural deviation". The meanings are different - the former has a moral meaning, the latter has a purely descriptive meaning.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
lol. No, it actually doesn't. I think I have repeated this to you a million times. You are misusing language, and are just trapped by this mis-use.
I'm not using states of existence to derive anything though, Agustino. Nowhere am I claiming something is good or bad because it exists. Rather, I'm saying there exist states which are good and bad.
So I literally mean it is the opposite. When someone tries to define an "ought" from an "is," they attempt to define ethics in terms of existence. Something is, supposedly, good or bad because it exists. My argument is the reverse, the opposite. It argues there is good and bad, defined on its own terms, the ethical. It says there is good and bad, for no reasons other than itself, which exists.
This is nonsensical. If the ought is "in" the "is" and, so to speak, already there, no-one is deriving anything. The ought is expressed on its own terms and doesn't need any justification from the "is" at all. When the "ought" is in the "is," there is no deriving work to do. We only need to derive when what we are looking for isn't present.
Your thinking lacks rigour and clarity here. You are supposing extra work people supposedly need to do, even though the presence of ethical significance is already staring them right in the face.
We can't derive an "is" from "ought" for a similar reason to why we can't derive an "ought from an "is." They are difference significance. To say something exists doesn't comment on whether it is ethical. To say something is ethical doesn't mean it exists.
They really don't. The point of "natural deviation" is to mark being gay as something unusual,something strange, for a human. It is an understanding which treats being gay as "Other." We don't use this when talking about any other human trait, at least the ones which are considered "normal." We don't, for example, say the human with two arms is a "natural deviation" of a human born with one arm.
No - that argument is incoherent, and that is not the argument that I have made. The operation of derivation is an intellectual operation of extracting in propositional form something that represents a relation amongst existents. An "ought" isn't in the same class as "existents" ; the fact that I ought to be nice to people as opposed to kill them does not exist in the same sense as black swans exist. The former are derived from the latter (as it were) via the intellectual operation called derivation. But for the intellect to be able to derive it, a priori, it must be found in that from which the intellect derives it. Thus the "ought" necessarily is found in the "is". However - it is not the same as the "is", because the two of them exist in different meanings of the word exist. Thus - something cannot be good or bad because it exists. Existence is prior to those adjectives.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
It's an intellectual operation. Without the intellect, no "ought" can be derived. It may be lurking among the "is", but it doesn't exist in the same way that the "is" does. That's why it requires the intellect to reveal it.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
No, this is what you think. I never said this, nor do any of my statements imply this.
No. What is deviant is defined as what is unlikely to occur in a standard distribution (it's more than two standard deviations from the mean). Homosexuality is unlikely to occur in a randomly chosen human being. Both the deviant and the mean are defined in themselves.
All this has to do is with their probability of occurring, it has nothing to do with their identity (which isn't one in terms of the other as both you and WoD mistakenly think).
If you and WoD think that given a random individual, he is more likely to be homosexual than not - then you're just fooling yourselves. The fact that homosexuality is not as frequent as heterosexuality demands an explanation. Why is it that there are fewer homosexuals through history? The explanation available is the evolutionary one, which explains why heterosexuality is the natural tendency of the human being in the most general sense (this does not refer to any particular human being; that's why it is an abstraction), and why homosexuality must necessarily be a natural deviation of the human being in the most general sense. These are evolutionary and undeniable explanations.
Some Y being a natural tendency denotes merely that population X, on average, will tend to have more members having the characteristic Y than other incompatible characteristics. This natural tendency has a natural origin in this case. It is the result of evolution, combined with the biological constraints imposed on population X.
It's a fact that man in general has a natural tendency towards heterosexuality. That, in itself, is undeniable. The only question that there ever was, was what causes this tendency - or in other words, why doesn't he have an equal tendency towards an incompatible characteristic such as homosexuality? And the answer is the one I have given.
Given evolution and the biological constraints currently existing, it is logically impossible for homosexuality to ever be a natural tendency - to ever form the majority of the population.
In which case "deriving" is irrelevant. Ethics doesn't require it. Understanding it doesn't require it, for the moment we pick-up on ethical expression in our intellect, we have it. We have no extra step to take. We just see the good or bad thing as it is. "Deriving" is useless, unnecessary and doing absolutely no work in accounting for ethics.
The problem here is not that we don't need our intellect to pick-up on ethical significance to understand it, but rather "deriving" has no place in this process. When we "reveal" ethical significance, we notice some state is good or bad. There is no "deriving." You are confusing coming to understand the ethical significance of a state, which we can't do without noticing a state of existence, for deriving an "ought" from an "is."
This is the "Othering" I'm talking about. No-one here thinks a genuinely randomly selected individual will likely be gay. The point is that lesser numbers are not an excuse for something to "need" extra explanation. There is no "general sense" to a human. Just the presence of every human as they are. Any human makes sense without resorting to classification of "natural deviation," as there is no a priori standard for what makes one person a human and another not.
The entire point here is against the "general sense" and it relevance to describing humans. Since no existing human is "abstract" or "general," as there is no a prior standard for what makes an empirical state, such "general sense" abstractions are an incoherent category error.
Yes there is deriving. Because whether something is good or not is not a property of the thing itself, but rather of how it relates to everything else. It's in the relation. Thus it has to be derived by the intellect - it's not sufficient to just look because you cannot see a relation with your eyes. If you could - we would all be sages.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
This is a non-sequitur. The problem only arises because you don't understand what the purpose of abstract and general final causes is - and so you misinterpret it.
Nope. I know perfectly well what those are: acts of mistaking features expressed by a large group of individuals for the rule that (supposedly) what define a rule which governs the nature of existence. Their "purpose" is to ignore the nature of the world in favour of the comfort of an "origin" rule. It's God/PSR all over again.
The underlying jurisprudential claim is that i) if an action is immoral and harms the society in which it occurs, the society ought to legislate against that action. The jurisprudential claim is two-fold: immoral and harmful to the society. In the interests of this argument, I will concede both to Agustino. Sexual relationships outside a closed marriage arrangement is immoral (harms the trust of the participants in the marriage) and is harmful to society (weakens marriage rights and obligations).
But the discussion here isn't whether adultery should be illegal, it's whether websites that explicitly offer services to enable that activity should be illegal. Prima facie the illegality of the websites doesn't go through on the same jurisprudential claim (the websites are not in themselves immoral or harmful), but requires another claim as an extension to that claim, a facilitation claim. We can state the facilitation claim as ii) if tools or services facilitate illegal action as established by i), then said tools or services ought to be legislated against because of the indirect harm such tools present by virtue of the action of i). We might want to make a reasonable condition to pre-empt semantic distinctions, such as: if tools or services facilitate illegal action as established by i), and is a reasonable and foreseeable outcome, then such tools ought to be legislated against.
The facilitation claim with or without the reasonable condition is problematic especially when the tools are designed in a way to mitigate the harms established in i). The illegality of adultery is premised on the harm caused when a spouse is made aware of the infidelity, but a tool that offers to reduce that harm by protecting information alleviates the jurisprudential claim. The website isn't fool-proof (evidenced by the hack), but if such activity is bound to happen, it might be better for a society to allow and encourage it to happen in a safe and secretive forum such as the websites.
No. Ethical significance is not expressed by a thing itself, but rather by its connections to everything else. A relation is not something one sees with their eyes - therefore it is something derived from what one sees with their eyes. It requires the powers of the intellect to extract. You are making a category error by assuming that one sees a relation the same way one sees a chair.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Nope. This is just your unfounded opinion. I suggest you pick up Aristotle's Physics and Metaphysics and start reading them. Perhaps you will realise that you're nowhere near Aristotle's definition nor use with regard to final causes. Therefore what you are talking about is a straw-man.
Furthermore, your post ignores that the people using AM must be punished as well. You just have failed to understand what the argument is about since you've read nothing but the first post.
Also, I might add. Any human makes sense. But ALL humans don't, without this explanation. A fallacy of composition WoD, which assumes that if any individual human makes sense, nothing else is missing. Maybe "all humans" have properties which individual humans don't, just like how every single grain of sand is hard, while a pile of sand is soft. How much more embarassing do you want this to get?
The liability of encouraging and facilitating access to illegal activity. That in itself is culpable.
Except where the facilitation of illegal activity mitigates the jurisprudential claim, is my rebuttal. If the facilitation of the activity alleviates the harms, it removes the impetus to outlaw such activity.
Yes it should. In open marriages people agree not to request the other to be faithful. In closed marriages, people make vows of faithfulness to each other. In open marriages there is no vow to be broken. In closed marriages there is. Hence the difference.
If we have a contract together and I break it, without you knowing it, have I harmed you?
Presumably not if I don't know about it. Would you say you have harmed me? I wouldn't even know where to begin to quantify a harm that I am unaware of. I don't know what would be the point of a contract you can break without my knowledge.
The government need not intervene every time you are wronged.
So if we agree that I shall deliver you beef meat, and instead I deliver you horse meat, claiming that it is beef, and you take it, assuming it to be beef, I have done you no harm? If I have done you no harm, how can finding the truth harm you? Finding the truth in and by itself can certainly cause you no harm, can it?
If as a doctor I tell you that I'll give you a general anesthetic, and instead I give you a poison that will not only put you to sleep, but will keep you there permanently, have I not harmed you? Afterall, you'll never know!
If you promise me beef meat and deliver horse meat, I have a mechanism to measure the harm if and only if I become aware of the deception (e.g., the harm to my health, financial harm for unfair pricing, etc). If I am never made aware of the deception, by what measure can I possibly say you have harmed me? If I agree to a contract with you I will outline the conditions of the contract to delimit the expectation of fulfillment and I will take care to ensure that those conditions are met so that I am not at risk of being harmed. If you still manage to deceive me and I come away feeling satisfied and unharmed, how can I make a claim to an unspecified harm that I am unaware of?
In the case of the murderous doctor, I'm not a spiritual person so I would say the harm is limited in my person to when I am alive, but my death will harm my friends and family insofar as my friends and family will, hopefully, notice I'm dead even if they don't know the extent that the doctor intended the harm. The breach of the fiduciary responsibility of the doctor can only be measured if and only if information is made known of the murderous intent.
I do see a point emerging here though. Insofar as an action is illegal, the facilitation of the illegal activity and concealment of said activity ought to be illegal (i.e., it's illegal to cover-up a crime).
Indeed.
The government ought to intervene when the government is wronged. If adultery can be broadly construed as a wrong committed against the values of the government, then the government has an interest to protect those values as far as it is reasonable to do so (people might object that adultery is not reasonable to outlaw because the cost to enforce such a law would be onerous). At least though, if the adultery law fails at the enforcement portion and not in relation to the jurisprudence claim, the facilitation claim might be upheld nonetheless and the enforcement of that law may not be onerous.
Incoherent. All humans are individuals. If all humans had a quality it would, by definition, by present on all individuals.
The softness of a pile of sand isn't a property of any individual grain. You are making a category error. It's a property expressed in the particular instance where there are many grains together. By definition the property of softness is one of a group of sand. It is not found in any individual member in the pile. The opposite of what you (that some individual humans have the property of "natural deviation" and others do not) are arguing.
This is PSR are all over again, Agustino. You look at the state of the world, the existence of non gay people and gay people, and take away the conclusion these things and their casual relationship are not enough. You want a "why" that sits above humans themselves. Like the proponent of PSR and/or God, you demanding there must be a "why" to how the world is itself, as if it it wasn't enough to make sense on its own.
Aristotle's Finial Cause is, amongst other things, this error. It is a notion of telos, that there is some force directing each the existence of state to a purpose, a "why" that the world supposedly needs to make sense.
Good. Thus it requires the processing of an understanding.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Just like all sand grains are hard, but certainly all sand grains are also soft.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Yes. Neither is a natural tendency a property of any individual human being :)
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Exactly! A natural tendency is a property that is expressed in the particular instance where there are many human beings together! Finally you're seeing some light! How refreshing WoD :)
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
But there is such a why. If you do not see it, you do not see it. Maybe some of us do see it; you shouldn't take the limits of your vision as the limits of the world :)
That's exactly what we never have. Each meaning of an thing (including "relations" to other objects- e.g. the computer screen is 50 is cm away form my eyes) is its own discrete instance, which we have no access to prior to the presence of our understanding. No process of understanding occurs. If we learn the ethical significance of something, we do it not through "deriving" (i.e. now I understand this state and by seeing it I know it's bad), but through the brute appearance that something is (im)moral in our experience. There are no "steps." We either know about meaning, in which case we understand it, or we do not.
Absolutely not. Only plies of sand are soft. It is an expression only given when there are man sand grain together. A similar meaning expression in humans, for example, would be the decision of a group. When there is a decision made by a group, there is something present which is not found in any instance of an individual human.
All (indvidual) grains are not certainly soft. Just the opposite in fact. Each one is still hard. It just so happens that a collection of them is soft.
A contradiction. That which is only a property of a group cannot be the property of an individual.
Yeah... that's what you think, but is an error. Any group property is expressed in particular instance when there are many humans together.
No doubt "natural" and "natural deviation ( "unnatural" )" are thought to be group properties. That's there entire point: all non-gay people (a group), supposedly, make sense with respect to the telos of humans, while all gay people (another group) do not. But this is both a normative claim, whether or not individual humans meet human telos, and an incoherence, as you can't talk about the significance of human individuals in terms of what is the only the group.
So said the believer of every falsehood ever, Agustino. The limits of my vision here are logical coherence. To admit you "vision" is to commit a logical error. I'm not letting you get away with peddling logically incoherent arguments just because you happen to like the idea of telos.
You are making the "But I believe it so it must be true" argument here, Agustino.
The claim of special knowledge unavailable to others, and a knowledge that privileges the knower in a self-serving way. A classic rightwing meme
False. Deriving requires access to say two objects, and involves extracting an understanding from the two of them of their relation, which is a process of the understanding. Whether it has steps or not is a different question all together.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Indeed, piles of sand are all sand grains. I used all sand grains with two different meanings, I think you failed to catch it.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Yes, grains of sand are hard is also an expression only given when there are man and sand grain together :)
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Yes, I haven't argued that a natural tendency is a property of the individual mate. Quite the opposite if you read what I wrote properly.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Nope, human beings, both gay and non-gay form the same group. Just like white swans and black swans form the same group, even though we can say the natural tendency for swans is to be white.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
No, you have failed to illustrate any logical coherence even of your own position. Time and time again I have proved you wrong, and you have just moved the goal-posts behind. First, you argued it is a naturalistic fallacy. I have shown how according to the definitions historically used, it cannot be a naturalistic fallacy, and instead you are committing one. Then you have argued that what explains homosexuality are genes, and I agreed, and I told you that this is not a problem cause then my argument shifts to saying that non-gay genes are a natural tendency of human beings. Now you are arguing that something isn't a process of the understanding merely because one doesn't consciously go through a list of steps. You're also trying to argue something you don't even begin to understand regarding group and individual properties and are continuously mistaking what they entail - you don't even read what I wrote correctly. You fail to see two different meanings of all grains in use. And so on...
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
No, you are the one who has no argument, but insist you are right. What can I do? You insist you are right, so I tell you: perhaps, just like some people are myopic and cannot see at distance, so too you cannot understand these matters. That too is a fact, and it doesn't mean that they don't exist.
Quoting Landru Guide Us
It is available to many others, both past and present. If you read Aristotle (ancient source), and Macintyre (modern) you will see it :)
A rather unfortunate place for me to miss I had missed a "y." I was saying "many sand grains together. Piles of sand are only soft when there are many sand grounds are present in a particular configuration. All sand grains DO NOT have (the) two different meanings. The ones not in a pile are not soft.
That's exactly what you are arguing. What you are doing is specifying a universal meanings (e.g. hard and soft with sand, natural and unnatural with humans, etc.,etc.) and arguing it gives insight into the nature of individuals,that it describes what they are what they are meant to be telos). Given individuals, you are, of this universal meaning, which can be used to understand the significance and reaction of any individual in the given category. You argument is making the universal the property of the individual, such that talking about a universal (supposedly) gives the nature of an individual.
This is the "naturalistic fallacy" I was talking about. Not your imagined version you are strawmanning, but the one I've been arguing from the start. I've never withdraw the claim you are making this naturalistic fallacy and my point about the failure of the distinction "natural tendency" and "unnatural tendency" is a continuation of this point.
The mistake you've been making from the start is to consider that some in the group are something more than themselves (i.e. "a natural tendency" rather than just themselves).
My point was that you were not making arguments on the ground your argument is true. You were side-tracked into making a plea about just how important the belief was to you, that it is what you felt and what you saw, and so it simply much be true an accurate. Here my problem was neither that you feel different or understand something I don't (which you, in an important sense very much do; I'll cover that in taking on Landru's assertion this is merely a meme. There is something wider and more significant going on, no matter how flawed the understanding might be), but the way you are arguing about it makes a mockery of logic.
No. There is no reference to what they are meant to be. You introduce a lot of asinine concepts that I do not agree with and that do not form any part of my worldview. You're persistently arguing with a strawman that only you see.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Ever touched the sand on a beach?
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
No a natural tendency cannot be used to understand the significance and reaction of an individual. Not at all. Again - a strawman.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Nope, another strawman. I never claimed the natural tendency belongs to the individual, but rather to man in general.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Justify how that is a naturalistic fallacy according to the definitions I have provided before. And no, please don't tell me that a natural tendency tells us about how some individual ought to be, because it doesn't - it only does that in your mind.
That's... in a pile, Agustino.
I know that. The problem is not that you claimed it. It is that you are thinking it. Your position is that you can understand individuals through "man in general" (i.e. property of "man in general" is of individuals, such that universal of the "man in general" describe something about the individual).
The problem is sort of the reverse you suggest: you claim individuals belong to the universal, that individuals are of "man in general," when that is what individuals never are (as the are specific states).
It runs deeper than that. What it suggests is that individuals only make sense if the are a certain way (of the "natural tendency" ). It is not a question of thinking what someone ought to be, but rather what it make sense for them to be.
What you are concern about is having an understanding of the world which hold that humans, necessarily MUST be and ARE, something in particular. What you hate about modern philosophy and culture is it holds there is no universal, there is no "general" which gives the individual.
In its shallow form, this modern philosophy gives the position that we and are world are nothing, that all existence is a blank slate, never with direction, always present with "freedom" and without any other sort of meaning which actually makes our lives enjoyable or worthwhile (e.g. need to work, the happiness of doing, the understanding was are something and that, as as state of existence, there is something we do). Supposedly, there is no idea (universal, general) which can say what existence is.
The "natural tendency" which you are so enamoured with is an attempt to get beyond this unsatisfying state of "freedom." It is to say: "Well, this is natural/unnatural, so it matters." The universal,"man in general," is used to fill the perceived meaningless of the individual. Supposedly, we finally have a world that matters, a world which one must (not ought, but MUST-i.e. it is a question of the meaning of existence, rather than just whether or not we ought to do something) respond to and be within.
But the problem is you've made exactly the error you are trying to avoid. The "universal" only needs to come along to say how existence matters because you've believed the shallow argument in the first instance. In the face of "freedom," you've accepted that it tells the truth about the individual. You've failed to grasp how it is a junk argument.
Instead pointing out that, contrary to what the "freedom" argument claims, individuals are always have some particular meaning, you've accepted the shallow modern argument gets us right, such that we need some extra "universal" to define how ourselves and world matters.
We don't. The world matters in various ways itself. How each state matters is an expression of that state itself. The world is never stuck in "freedom." No "universal" is required to rescue how the world matters. When we begin with the crazy idea that, you know, things matter in some way, we don't need any way to "make" them matter.
You mean you've read Aristotle! That is such a rare scholarly achievement. I'll have to look up this Aristotle fellow.
I didn't know a beach is a pile. It's sand grains together. So the property of a single sand grain is hardness. The property of a group of sand grains is softness. Natural tendency is a property of the group of human beings, not of any individual human being.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
No, this simply isn't my position. More straw-manning.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Lol - no I don't. If you're under that impression, let me clarify the 100th time that I don't claim that.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Nope - it's not this either. But had it been this, it would still not be a naturalistic fallacy.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
No not at all. Natural tendency of humans in general doesn't mean that an individual human must be anything in particular...
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
This is a separate question. What I dislike about it is the fact that it attempts to universalise that there is no universal... a most radical self-contradiction, if there ever was one. Also what I dislike about it is that it fails to see that there are generalities and universals with regard to many things.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
That's not a state of freedom, it's a state of radical incoherency and self-contradiction. Also your statements about some "unsatisfying freedom" are the most crass delusion I've read in awhile.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Nope. Just because something is natural does not mean it matters more or less than something unnatural. You're again imagining things.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Absolutely no relation between this "meaninglessness of the individual" and the universal "man in general". Meaning is always context specific, so a universal (ie, a context-less statement) cannot provide meaning. Furthermore, a natural tendency is a universal, but it is situated in the context of that which gives rise to it: evolution and the biological constraints placed on man and woman - thus it isn't a pure universal - it does have some context. If evolution were different, or the biological constraints placed on reproduction were different, the natural tendency would be different, but it would still be just as universal in terms of its applicability to humanity.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
No - again, another one of your imaginations - the universal comes because it is rationally needed. Such explanations exist, and they do account for what happens in the world, just like gas laws account for the random distribution of gas molecules in a closed container.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
No, contrary to your nonsensical hypothesis, I actually do accept that individuals always have particular meanings (meaning is context-mediated). You fail to understand the purpose of the natural tendency, which is purely explanatory, and does not exist to create meaning.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Yes - universals however have nothing to do with the world mattering. Aristotle and Plato didn't sit in their chairs one day being like "Oh this meaningless world... man must somehow be rescued from this terrible freedom, therefore we have to invent this concept of "universal" to give meaning to an otherwise meaningless world". No, that's not how it happened at all. I really do suggest you read the Physics and Metaphysics at least...
Quoting Landru Guide Us
Unfortunately, to my shame, I've only read a little of Aristotle and quite a bit about him. One of the few great philosophers who still has quite a few works I haven't read and whose insights I've started to appreciate lately, even though I didn't like him much at first :)
If sin is connected to various sexual acts and behavior by the dominant culture, then there will always be those that deviate from the norm.
Nature made all animals (humans included) interested in sex and therefore procreation.
How is this activity sinful when it is perfectly normal and natural?
No, certainly not, as I'm from a modern, secular, liberal nation, not a draconian, religious, authoritarian nation, and that's exactly how it should be, and how it should remain. The state has no business forcing it's way into such private matters, based no doubt on your twisted Christian beliefs about fidelity, punishment, and the like. The further away people like you are from the legislature, or any influential role in parliament, the better!
I am not surprised to see another characteristically appalling suggestion from Agustino, even though he posts nothing like the rate at which he used to.
(Turns out this discussion is 4 years old, excepting my comment here and the one above it).
Your ISIS analogy fails because it facilitates crimes, whereas affairs are not crimes. Do you have any data support your claim that clandestine affairs cause more broken homes? It's conceivable that the homes get broken by the discovery of the affair, which would imply these sites are doing a service by making it easier to do them secretly.
About 10 years ago, a married aquaintence of mine had an affair through Ashley Madison (or something similar). He resorted to this because his 20 year marriage was celibate. He was devoted to his wife, so he didn't want to divorce her or hurt her - but he really didn't want to live without sex for the rest of his life. His affair was short-lived, and I'm pretty sure his wife never found out about it. I lost touch, but based on his facebook status - he still seems to be married to her. In a sense, Ashley-Madison saved his marriage.