Anybody believe this guy - Ashley Madison leak

Forums › Off topic › Anybody believe this guy - Ashley Madison leak

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | ... | 17

BDFL - Memuneh
79270 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1372229 22-Aug-2015 23:13

DizzyD:
freitasm:
DizzyD: Actually, unless you are a religious, or believe in some sort of God. There is no such thing as morals! If you admit there is such a thing as morals well then you are saying that there is such a thing called evil.

Wow... You are saying that atheists are amorals?

That's so twisted and false.

Probably not the right word. But surely neutral on the subject of morality?

I think you are completely wrong here. Morality is not a religious concept. It's a philosophical one.

DizzyD:
joker97: i think it is incorrect to say neutral on morality. everyone has their own sets of rules/standards they live by.

Then you would agree that to some people adultery is immoral, and to others maybe not?

There is no absolute morality unless you are religious.

I absolutely disagree. Prime example: conservative religious pro-family values Josh Duggar had a profile on AM. Also "In May 2015, Duggar was forced to resign after In Touch Weekly reported that he had molested five young girls (four of whom were his own sisters) beginning in 2002. When the accusations became public, the family went into crisis mode, insisting that Josh had reformed and that the media covering the claims was intent on “exploiting women.”

So, you see. Religion is not the same as morals. There are twisted people everywhere.

JWR

821 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1372231 22-Aug-2015 23:19

freitasm:
DizzyD:
freitasm:
DizzyD: Actually, unless you are a religious, or believe in some sort of God. There is no such thing as morals! If you admit there is such a thing as morals well then you are saying that there is such a thing called evil.

Wow... You are saying that atheists are amorals?

That's so twisted and false.

Probably not the right word. But surely neutral on the subject of morality?

I think you are completely wrong here. Morality is not a religious concept. It's a philosophical one.

....

Yes, I agree with this.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79270 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1372246 23-Aug-2015 00:15

joker97: and preachers travel around in jet planes ... just by tuning in to his/her preaching i am immoral!

Creflo Dollar still wants his congregation to pay for his US$65 million dollars jet.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79270 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1372252 23-Aug-2015 00:56

Christian blogger... Oh you know the drill. This person has an account too, despite his claims of morals..

http://gawker.com/viral-christian-pregnancy-youtuber-sam-rader-had-a-paid-1725258643

JWR

821 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1372277 23-Aug-2015 08:13

freitasm:
joker97: and preachers travel around in jet planes ... just by tuning in to his/her preaching i am immoral!

Creflo Dollar still wants his congregation to pay for his US$65 million dollars jet.

I don't think there has ever been a better surname for a tv-evangelist.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29763 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1372288 23-Aug-2015 09:03

How not to commit adultery (looking at someone else's wife) when you attend Kardashian's church

note: not all religious people abuse boys, in fact they are the ones that help the poor, clothe the naked and feed the hungry, measured by percentage of nett worth - they just don't make it into the news. in the same vein, the notorious scums of the earth put the rest of the people off anything remotely religious

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18660 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1372307 23-Aug-2015 09:38

DizzyD:
Rikkitic: Um, my question would be 'so what'? If someone lives in a country that stones adulterers, and they put their name up on an adultery website, you might question their judgement but that still has nothing to do with their morals, which are still none of your business. If someone is a lying cheating bastard that is also none of your business. It only becomes your business if they damage you by lying or cheating. It is their actions that you have a right to pass judgement on, not their morals.

Morals need a source to be compared against. What is your source on the argument of morals?

Actually, unless you are a religious, or believe in some sort of God. There is no such thing as morals! If you admit there is such a thing as morals well then you are saying that there is such a thing called evil. And by that I assume there is a thing called good. You are therefore assuming that there is such a thing in life that is as an absolute and unchanging moral law. Good and Evil. So whats your source on your argument of morals? How do you differentiate between good and evil? Not a trick question? Just curious. I assume you are a man/woman of religion?

Fred99:

In your opinion.
And I strongly disagree - as does the law in our (free) country. Hacking is illegal, and adultery isn't. Breach of privacy is illegal, and adultery isn't. Blackmail is illegal, and adultery isn't.

So your source of argument, or moral law, is whats legal/illegal? You have 100% faith in our government then?

Went out last night, back this morning, this thread has gone into orbit. I don't have the energy to respond to everything that has appeared here, but I will respond to this.

1. I am neither religious nor aetheist (sounds too passive). I prefer to think of myself as actively anti-religious. I agree that a lot of good works are done by people who identify themselves as following one faith or another, but a lot of horrible things are also done by people who claim religious belief as their justification. I don't think one needs religion to do either good or bad. I do think religion gets in the way of clear thought.

2. I believe in values and I think some values are absolute. A person with values does not need a bearded father figure in the sky to want to do the right thing. The right thing is to not cause suffering in others. The right thing is to not place selfishness above compassion. There are lots of right things that govern behaviour. The source of my morals is not wanting to hurt others. I find that a pretty powerful argument.

3. On the basis of the preceding, I have no trouble at all differentiating between good and evil. Which is not to say that I am always good. We all have failings and moments of weakness. But that does not mean we cannot tell right from wrong.

4. When reading your earlier comments, I could not get the picture out of my head of an old lady in blue stockings with a pinched face peering through the bushes to see if the neighbours were getting up to something she did not approve of. What other people do is simply not a matter of concern to anyone else. That is my point. You have every right to disapprove of adultery but you do not have any right to pass judgement on the actions of people you do not even know. Unless it affects you personally, it is none of your business.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Tradepub

Free professional, reference and technical white papers (affiliate link).

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1372314 23-Aug-2015 09:53

I think the Catholic church has more than proved that morals and religion are not always fellow travellers....see, for example, the Inquisition or more recently various examples of deviant behaviour from priests.

DizzyD

523 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1372315 23-Aug-2015 09:56

Rikkitic: You have every right to disapprove of adultery but you do not have any right to pass judgement on the actions of people you do not even know. Unless it affects you personally, it is none of your business.

So if John Key's email address, credit card info etc came out of the dump from AM. And it was shown he was a regular member of the site.

Its none of our business?

I agree with you, I would love to believe this is true. The NZ public however will probably disagree with you.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79270 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1372337 23-Aug-2015 10:06

Lots of difference between a public figure's privacy and a normal citizen.

A public figure has to expect his own life will be scrutinised on a different level.

Keep religion out of this thread from now on everyone. I think it is been discussed enough.

InactiveKick

14 posts

Geek
Inactive user

#1372360 23-Aug-2015 10:44

But who the heck would use another person's email address when they want to "hide" an illicit affair?!?

That's just plain downright illogical. As DizzyD so rightly highlights, these clearly narcissistic suckers had it coming.

I mean, wtf? Who the feck would publicize an affair - even to a site that was supposedly designed to 'hide all their sneaky, sordid crap'?

The answer's simple: preening, self-promoters with massive FIGJAM complexes... so i'm like kinda surprised (in that case) more politicians

weren't on the list of *.govt.nz emails recovered.

The biggest, laughable irony of the whole sorry mess, is how the cheaters & Ashley Madison are crying foul and that they're being

hard done by... they feel criminally violated... even "cheated"... hmmmm, payback's a b!tch, aint it? ;)

InactiveKick

14 posts

Geek
Inactive user

#1372361 23-Aug-2015 10:47

Agree.. i take exception to your religious comments Geektastic - especially since it's not even on topic. Was going to flag your post, but an Admin'

has already put you on notice, so :P

JWR

821 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1372370 23-Aug-2015 11:00

InactiveKick: Agree.. i take exception to your religious comments Geektastic - especially since it's not even on topic. Was going to flag your post, but an Admin'

has already put you on notice, so :P

It was little off topic. But, what he posted is factually accurate.

InactiveKick

14 posts

Geek
Inactive user

#1372373 23-Aug-2015 11:06

Really? Are we still discussing religion?!? I mean, wtf? I don't care, and i don't wanna know. Can we end it right here, pls?? For cryin' out loud :/

JWR

821 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1372376 23-Aug-2015 11:10

freitasm: Lots of difference between a public figure's privacy and a normal citizen.

A public figure has to expect his own life will be scrutinised on a different level.

Keep religion out of this thread from now on everyone. I think it is been discussed enough.

If any senior public figure joined this site, then it's their sanity and judgment that would be immediately questioned.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | ... | 17